A Demon Haunted World

[Whipstitch]

Cockatrice appears at level 3; remove petrification already needs to be there at level 3.

Does Basilisk add any other "you must be this tall" hurdles by the very nature of the concept? Or does this mean cockatrices belong in level 4 along with it?

The answer to both can be no without there being any contradiction. In the paradigm Frank is shilling the principle difference between a ghoul/ghast and a cockatrice is that the latter requires a higher level spell slot to clean up the after effects but isn't necessarily more dangerous otherwise. By comparison basilisks have traditionally boasted longer range on their petrify via gaze as well as a better chassis than the death bird. Thus cleaning up after a basilisk fight requires the same sort of resources but in larger quantities.

[MGuy]

No one really knows if there is any contradiction because no one knows what Frank's thinking on it is. You can't say that the cockatrice has to be level 3 because you need a higher level spell slot to clean up the effects because what's in what spell slot and at what level is not known. The point of creating monsters first is to use them to determine what is going to be at what spell slot and at what time. So no one knows why the Frank decides that a cockatrice is at level 3 and a basilisk at 4 or even what the intended difference between those two levels is supposed to be. If this is supposed to help people through the design process there are a bunch of details missing.

[Username17]

As far as Cockatrices go, I could see going either way. On the one hand, it's not really a problem if players can get a disenchantment ritual that is a costly means of removing the Petrified condition after combat at 3rd level. On the other hand, it's not really a problem if Cockatrices hand out the Paralyzed condition instead. I don't really think it's integral to the concept either way.

Cockatrices in legends and stories have paralyzed, petrified, or just killed outright. And they've done it with touch, breath, or gaze attacks.

In D&D, Cockatrices have normally been a deadly touch creature. But I don't think it's terribly important. Cockatrices have normally been a monster that is underused for how iconic they are due to the very high cost of removing Petrification for characters low enough level to be threatened by doom chickens in 2nd, 3rd, and 5th edition D&D. I can't recall how 4th edition Cockatrices work and don't give a shit. But in any case, by making cleaning up after Petrification affordable, or swapping them into Paralysis that ends on its own, the Cockatrice becomes a reasonable monster. And thence, due to being an iconic monster, it's going to be relatively popular the moment they become usable at all.

-Username17

[SeekritLurker]

. But in any case, by making cleaning up after Petrification affordable, or swapping them into Paralysis that ends on its own, the Cockatrice becomes a reasonable monster. And thence, due to being an iconic monster, it's going to be relatively popular the moment they become usable at all.

-Username17

Bonus points if you can use their corpses as NetHack-style rubber chickens? [/sarcasm]

Related - I think I need to put cockatrice egg petrification grenades in my campaign.

[nockermensch]

I don't think anybody would care much if a cockatrice's touch dealt 1d6 dex damage (Fort Save negates).

[DrPraetor]

Ability damage is a stupid mechanic. You've abstractified general injury to hit points, and you've abstractified a range of other impairments to various conditions, why do you need yet a third orthogonal system of keeping track of impairments that don't stack with being stabbed?

We can argue about what is the worst problem with ability damage, but I think the keenest failure point is: you have to keep careful track of this orthogonal system and care that it doesn't emit nonsense output for certain combinations of threats.

The Avernum games have paralyzing basilisks too, although half of the within-game fluff was written for previous versions of the game (this is the second rewrite of Exile I->III) so basilisk islands have petrified creatures on them and stuff as well.

[Grek]

The cockatrice should petrify people because we already have a low level paralysis-inflicting melee monster in D&D - the ghoul.

[nockermensch]

Ability damage is a stupid mechanic. You've abstractified general injury to hit points, and you've abstractified a range of other impairments to various conditions, why do you need yet a third orthogonal system of keeping track of impairments that don't stack with being stabbed?

I don't think anybody would care much if the conditions were expanded so that more of them were on tracks with increasingly worse effects, like Fear currently works (Shaken < Frightened < Panicked). If people get Petrified after the third successful attack of a cockatrice (the first attack reduces speed, the second slows), I'd have less problems with everybody's favorite cock monster appearing as a "CR 3" challenge.

The expansion of the condition system could also cover for ability damage. If Shadows inflict the Weak condition (-2 to attack / damage and Strength based checks) and then this condition can worsen to Decrepit (-4 to attack / damage and Strength based checks, is considered burdened) and finally to Powerless (prone, helpless, can't move or take physical actions) then you still have undead with the bad touch without having to stop mid combat to figure what are your attack numbers now that your Strength went from 20 to 15.

[MGuy]

The cockatrice should petrify people because we already have a low level paralysis-inflicting melee monster in D&D - the ghoul.

So what? This isn't an argument.

[Username17]

So assuming we have a standard party:

Well, the standard party is going to be standards. So not multiclass hijinx where you're trading stuff for other stuff off other lists. But sure:

• Thri-Kreen Monk
• Human Paladin
• Elf Druid
• Gnome Illusionist
• Orc Assassin

The idea then is that at each level, every standard character should be able to bring something to the party for at least 2 and preferably 3 of the sample monsters at each level. So our Monk at level 4 should be able to have:

• Diamond Soul: Advantage against, Mummy, Nightmare, Wraith
• Combat Reflexes: Advantage against Phase Spider, Unicorn, Gryphon
• Inner Eye: Advantage against Basilisk, Siren, Vampire, Invisible Stalker

And they need to have at least a de-cursing/de-poisoning ritual so that they can clean up after whatever Mummies, Wraiths, Basilisks, Vampires, or Phase Spiders have done to the other party members.

-Username17

[Grek]

The cockatrice should petrify people because we already have a low level paralysis-inflicting melee monster in D&D - the ghoul.

So what? This isn't an argument.

There is a preference for monsters of the same level to be meaningfully different challenges with different solutions. Paralysis (can't take actions, vulnerable to attacks, goes away on its own) is different enough from Petrification (can't take actions, highly resistant to attacks, lasts until cured) that a paralyzing monster is different from a petrifying monster. Paralyzing monsters attack successfully paralyzed targets for massive damage; petrifying monsters ignore successfully petrified targets and try to petrify other people instead. If there's no thematic or balance issues that contradict our preference for variety, it makes sense to prefer that cockatrices petrify rather than having two CR 3 paralyzing melee monsters who mostly play out the same in a fight.

[MGuy]

I never said there was a contradiction. The 'variety' between being paralyzed and taken out vs being taken straight out by petrification and having to get a soft from the local grocer isn't that big. I mean it sucks 'more' that petrification doesn't wear off on its own but that's just a difference in just deciding one is long term while the other isn't because 'reasons'. That's still not a real argument against having more than one monster at the same level who can do similar things.

[Grek]

I don't know how I can make this any more clear than I already did in my prior post. You do get that there is a difference between this set of tactics:

Ghoul Tactics: If someone within melee range is paralyzed, coup de grace them with your teeth for massive damage. Otherwise, attempt to paralyze the nearest person with a paralytic claw attack. When moving, interpose yourself between enemies to hinder rescue attempts. If things start looking bad, ransom a paralyzed victim back to the party in exchange for your freedom.

and this set of tactics:

Cockatrice Tactics: If there are non-petrified creatures within swooping range, try to petrify the nearest with a peck. Once all opponents are petrified, knock over the statues and eat the rubble. When moving, keep to the edges of combat by darting in and out for petrify and runs. If things start looking bad, fly into the air because the party can't chase you.

Right? One monster preferentially targets PCs who've been disabled while the other preferentially targets PCs who haven't been disabled. One is incentivized to stand in between two PCs, the other is incentivized to stand off to the side of the PCs. One will hold a claw to a paralyzed PC's throat as a negotiation tactic, while the other will run away and leave the petrified PCs behind. These are emergent properties of how Paralysis differs from Petrification. Having two Paralysis enemies and zero Petrification enemies at a given level means not having these tactical differences.

[MGuy]

I get that you think that these things are incredibly different and I truly thank you for ignoring that what I said was that the difference is that the difference isn't big, not that there was no difference. Only thing I'd say is that they are emergent properties that are really similar because you can do the same thing in both cases except paralysis might be less reliable after afflicting the status and also if you want your cocks to take hostages they could though I probably wouldn't do that with the chickens. Honestly you could eliminate the difference entirely by saying one paralyzes forever.

[DrPraetor]

So assuming we have a standard party:

Well, the standard party is going to be standards. So not multiclass hijinx where you're trading stuff for other stuff off other lists. But sure:

• Thri-Kreen Monk
• Human Paladin
• Elf Druid
• Gnome Illusionist
• Orc Assassin

You're making a marketing mistake.

If I say, here's the stuff that Fighters get, and here's sublist A of fighter stuff that you can give up in order to subclass as necromancer and be a death knight, that will be very painful.

OTOH, while it ends up in the same place, if you say:
- Here's the stuff that fighters get.
- Now, you can choose a kit from armsmaster (which is what would have been on fighter sublist A), death knight and so on.

EDIT: Then, people will be happier because their loss-aversion bias isn't triggered.

So our Monk at level 4 should be able to have:

• Diamond Soul: Advantage against, Mummy, Nightmare, Wraith
• Combat Reflexes: Advantage against Phase Spider, Unicorn, Gryphon
• Inner Eye: Advantage against Basilisk, Siren, Vampire, Invisible Stalker

... what is combat reflexes doing in this example?

[erik]

So our Monk at level 4 should be able to have:

• Diamond Soul: Advantage against, Mummy, Nightmare, Wraith
• Combat Reflexes: Advantage against Phase Spider, Unicorn, Gryphon
• Inner Eye: Advantage against Basilisk, Siren, Vampire, Invisible Stalker

... what is combat reflexes doing in this example?

That *is* a curious medley of opponents for a tactic to be strong against. A kiter, a charger, and a pouncer.

I'm guessing the Combat Reflexes counter is some sort of counter attack/readied attack which maybe combines with stunning attack to stop halt their attack routine.

[nockermensch]

So our Monk at level 4 should be able to have:

• Diamond Soul: Advantage against, Mummy, Nightmare, Wraith
• Combat Reflexes: Advantage against Phase Spider, Unicorn, Gryphon
• Inner Eye: Advantage against Basilisk, Siren, Vampire, Invisible Stalker

... what is combat reflexes doing in this example?

Clearly it's something that allows you to attack act before you get pounced/charged.

[Mask_De_H]

DrP, you're putting the cart before the horse on a hypothetical. For the hypothetical situation here, you define what the base classes can do, then line-fit abilities for subclasses/multiclasses/whatever after you have the base abilities down.

K.I.S.S.

[Username17]

... what is combat reflexes doing in this example?

It's a thing that lets you interrupt movement, thereby letting you put the smackdown on creatures whose combat routine depends on them completing movement-based combos. It seems like an appropriate thing for a Monk to do.

Then, people will be happier because their loss-aversion bias isn't triggered.

I don't think that a 4th level character should be something you have to use four sentences to explain. "Orc Assassin" should be enough information to get the vague gist. Sure, there are like ability and skill selections and shit for customization, but the sample characters shouldn't be hard to explain.

-Username17

[Mord]

Ability damage is a stupid mechanic. You've abstractified general injury to hit points, and you've abstractified a range of other impairments to various conditions, why do you need yet a third orthogonal system of keeping track of impairments that don't stack with being stabbed?

I don't think anybody would care much if the conditions were expanded so that more of them were on tracks with increasingly worse effects, like Fear currently works (Shaken < Frightened < Panicked). If people get Petrified after the third successful attack of a cockatrice (the first attack reduces speed, the second slows), I'd have less problems with everybody's favorite cock monster appearing as a "CR 3" challenge.

The expansion of the condition system could also cover for ability damage. If Shadows inflict the Weak condition (-2 to attack / damage and Strength based checks) and then this condition can worsen to Decrepit (-4 to attack / damage and Strength based checks, is considered burdened) and finally to Powerless (prone, helpless, can't move or take physical actions) then you still have undead with the bad touch without having to stop mid combat to figure what are your attack numbers now that your Strength went from 20 to 15.

I agree with this completely. Ability damage and conditions cover at least 75% of the same ground, and I think the concept of "every stat has a save" that made it into 5e comes directly from that association.

There doesn't have to be a huge system difference between "all ability damage" or "all escalating conditions," from a numbers and modifiers standpoint, but there's certainly no good reason to keep both. I think that going "all escalating conditions" and utterly shitcanning ability damage would make it easier to add a greater variety of effects at the possible risk of having too many separate condition tracks to comfortably keep track of.

[Username17]

There doesn't have to be a huge system difference between "all ability damage" or "all escalating conditions," from a numbers and modifiers standpoint, but there's certainly no good reason to keep both. I think that going "all escalating conditions" and utterly shitcanning ability damage would make it easier to add a greater variety of effects at the possible risk of having too many separate condition tracks to comfortably keep track of.

There doesn't have to be "all" escalating conditions. But having a few stacking conditions does everything you want ability damage to do and none of the crazy bullshit that you don't. I mean, the thing where the flensing spell does a bit of Charisma damage and therefore completely randomly is the killer app to get rid of lots of rando monsters and is completely useless against a bunch of others based on information that is essentially secret (in that you probably didn't remember that the Ghast and the Ogre have a difference of nine in their typical Charisma scores despite both being ugly dudes that go "rar!") is pretty fucking terribad. But monsters having a Fatigued -> Exhausted -> Asleep track or a Shaken -> Frightened -> Panicked track has shown itself to be pretty reasonable.

Having a Poisoned track or a Diseased track would be pretty reasonable as well. But there isn't any reason to have something that Blind stacks into. Nor is there much to be gained by having extra lesser levels of dimmed vision. Lots of conditions can and should be stand alone.

But yes, having some system by which a fear effect can inflict a modest penalty to the powerful and the brave while it forces Kobold Militia types to run the fuck off is something that D&D has wanted like forever. And the weird ass hit die charts of Holy Words and Draconic Frightening Presence is 100% not the answer. And Ability damage isn't the answer either because it's way too fucking wonky. But Saving Throws on curved die rolls where people get pushed to the end o past the RNG but there are effect level outputs is a thing that would scratch that itch for a lot of kinds of effects. Like I could see a thing where you rolled 3d6+Bonuses (with Bonuses often being in the double digits for bad asses) to resist Poison, but there were bands of various effect levels from Sickened to Dead that were like 6 points long.

Another issue is that people would very much like slow to be more likely to work than finger of death. And as such, having really wildly different DCs with effect levels for failure by various amounts could be an answer to that. Ideally, we'd like to have Wizards dump inconvenience spells on enemies that are too tough to blow away outright. And 3e hasn't delivered on that. But it's not difficult to imagine a ruleset that did - you just have to drop the fetish for all effects having equal DCs regardless of whether the effect being resisted is real bad or just annoying.

-Username17

[Cervantes]

For "unequal DCs", just have the spell be done with a +N/-N to DC. So Finger of Death is done at a -4 to your spell DC, slow is done with a +4 or whatever.

Assuming, of course, that you want spell DCs to scale with your level

[Mr. Z]

I do see some potential pitfalls with escalating conditions as a replacement for ability damage:

1) Historically, way more stuff targets Strength/Dexterity/Constitution than it does Intelligence/Wisdom/Charisma.
If the condition tracks are potentially very crippling or dangerous, then it’s more likely that Strength/Dexterity/Constitution based classes(read: Martial classes) get shit on.

This also an issue under the old ability damage rules, but the inverse of Frank’s point about Ghasts vs Orges is also true. It was conceptually possible that that a Strength/Dexterity/Constitution based PC got their primary stats big enough that getting hit a few times with ability damage wasn’t an immediate issue. With 3 stage condition track where the 3rd stage is equal to a 0 in the stat, 3 hits is all it takes for anyone.

2) Keyword Bloat. If every attribute was given a separate 3 stage condition track, each with it’s own keyword, then assuming all 6 D&D stats are still in the game(something that isn’t given), then there’s 18 new keywords. If all those keywords do specific things, it can be a pain to memorize and slow up gameplay at table time. This is probably isn’t(or less of) an issue with a Gaming Den regular, but probably is for the average table.

This is also something of a namespace issue; every keyword used for a condition summary is a word that can’t(or at least shouldn’t) be used elsewhere. There’s already 35 condition summary keywords in 3.5, just doing a quick count off the SRD. 18 new keywords would mean there’s a 50% increase, and if there’s a strong push for more condition keywords, that number can grow.

These issues are all implementation specific, but they’re worth considering.

The first point can probably be solved acknowledging that it’s more likely to happen to Strength/Dexterity/Constitution based classes giving them more access to ways to counter, reduce, or ignore those conditions.

The second point is a bit more complex, because presumably the different conditions should do different things. Having the all the stats use the same set of keywords(Damaged&#8594;Drained&#8594;Depleted) solves the keyword issue, but then the player would need to know that Strength(Drained) means something different from Intelligence(Drained), so it may be something of a wash.

[DrPraetor]

I'm going to leave some corpses on this hill.

So, let's consider an identical character, presented two ways.
[*] An Orc Assassin, who has traded his "schedule B" powers for Necromancy. (Presentation 1)
[*] An Orc Assassin, who didn't take the default/advised "Poison Master" kit (which gives you the powers that would've appeared on Assassin Schedule B), and took the "Necromancer" kit instead. (Presentation 2)

Now, in either case, you had better have the "core abilities" of the Assassin class. So if you sit down at the table, and someone else brought their Druid, their Druid can summon a fog and your Assassin can leap out of the fog and murder people. That's non-negotiable.

So when you sit down at the table, either of those characters must be describable as "An Orc Assassin."

Tediously repeating myself, if you allow subclassing-type customization, the core abilities of the Assassin are something you can't be allowed to trade away.

The upside to Presentation 2:
[*] It forces you to design classes around their core competencies first, which are abilities you are guaranteed to have at the corresponding level. Only things that an Orc Assassin is guaranteed to get appear on that list.
[*] It makes new class content generation easier, because new classes don't need to have Schedule B abilities at all (you can just take Poison Master or Necromancer or whatever subclass/kit).
[*] It makes class descriptions easier to read because you don't need to put *s or italicize or whatever the list of abilities that only some people even get.
[*] It doesn't trigger loss aversion when people take a non-standard kit.

So, yeah, there's some small number of characters who would be able to shorten their description at the table from "Orc Assassin-Poison Master" to just "Orc Assassin"; that's a benefit, but swamped by the benefits of always swapping in and never swapping out.

I'd further propose the following.
[*] Core classes get major powers at odd-numbered levels and minor powers at even numbered levels. In particular, everyone gets some core class ability at 1st level.
[*] Kits get the reverse - major powers at even-numbered levels and minor powers at odd.
[*] Non-human races are either backgrounds that don't do much, or they are subclasses/kits (or both), like:

High Elf
Level 1: Fae subtype. The character is immune to powers that explicitly target humanoids and vulnerable to powers that explicitly target fae.
Level 2: Elven awareness. When rolling for passive perception, the character is always assumed to be actively searching, although die rolls are still taken by the DM in secret. (Note that this would require some decent perception rules, since no-one knows what the hell the difference is between Searching and Looking in D&D.)
Level 3: Faerie indemnity. The character can consume the intoxicating products of Fae creatures (these are poisons, mostly non-lethal, with the Fae designator) without ill effects.
Level 4: Elf Magic. The character can learn 2nd level techniques from the Fae Magic list (see below). Learn one without Elan cost. These are all Vancian spells regardless of the main resource schedule of the characters class; but, most can be used as free actions.
Level 5: Elven grace. Elves look good in anything. On a presence check, the Elf is always considered "perfectly attired", regardless of circumstances.
Level 6: Advanced Elf Magic. The character can learn 3rd level techniques from the Fae Magic list (see below). Learn one without Elan cost. These are all Vancian spells regardless of the main resource schedule of the characters class; but, most can be used as free actions.

So Elves are better for classes that want to be conservative with their action economy.

If you want to take the Elf background, that means you have forest survival, are proficient in the bow and can speak elvish. You can have pointy ears if you want.

Elan, by the way, is something you can spend to get the equivalent of backgrounds in World of Darkness. You can buy technique knowledge with it (which lets you write abilities on your character sheet, but you have to use slots to actually benefit from them.) It serves as an artificer pool if you can make your own magic items; if your familiar, cohort, or etc. dies you have to spend Elan to get a new one, and so on. You can also spend Elan on mentors, other sorts of hirelings, and things of that nature.

[merxa]

There doesn't have to be "all" escalating conditions. But having a few stacking conditions does everything you want ability damage to do and none of the crazy bullshit that you don't.
...

What I liked about ability damage is that once you're familiar with what str or con does it's pretty easy to immediately alter combat statistics. The problem with conditions is you're going to have look them up every single time they happen. Like every time, even after playing for years and years I still double check the frightened entry, or what deafness does.

I agree there's wonkiness where targeting a fighters cha or a dragons dex is probably too easy but that's more an issue with stat design. You could just bake stat development straight into leveling, instead of giving out attack bonuses and saving throw progressions just hand out small stat bonuses every level, every other level.

If you have a reasonable stat setup you could even tie conditions to them, ie having a -5 dex means you're blind, -10 cha petrified, or a -5 wisdom is confused(although confusion should be rewritten to have combat and non-combat entries). Again I rather forego stats as a number and replace it with only the modifier, base at +0. Of course you can still have the blind or confused condition separate from ability damage, but ability scores could still be a universal short hand for all of these things.

I agree that it would be great to see a PC cast slow, and they don't because it's all or nothing. Either you could artificially boost the DC, give it partial effects on save(lasts one round), or introduce a range of success / failure (apparently PF2 will have critical success, critical failure, on a > 10 < threshold).