At this point its really just a question of setting and level, we're at level 3 and 5 right now. One campaign should have a major dragon run-in down the road, as the dragon has been the root of several issues the PCs are dealing with at the moment.
D&D 4E Things wrong with 4e: Dragons
At this point its really just a question of setting and level, we're at level 3 and 5 right now. One campaign should have a major dragon run-in down the road, as the dragon has been the root of several issues the PCs are dealing with at the moment.
herrozerro
First Post
this comes off and just offensive and ignorant. I play a 4e game and all of those things are a big part of my game.
Stormonu
Legend
If the 5E Monster Manual were to go back to including lairs and encounter stuff like the 3.5E MM4, I'd throw it out in a heartbeat. I want my MM loaded up with monsters, not encounters. I agree with others that the proper place for expanded encounters should be in books like Draconomicon, for those who want that sort of detail.
Klaus
First Post
I don't get it. You need dragons to include other stuff so they can be villains? Can't the villain just do what you need, dragon or not?
For instance, I did a few changes to Keep on the Shadowfell. The biggest was that I swapped Kalarel for a Black Dragon aiming on becoming a Dracolich. I didn't need to justify how the Black Dragon was commanding the undead, or how it raised the undead about it. I just pulled a Picard and made it so.
fenriswolf456
First Post
Totally at a loss here. How can a book providing you with an overabundance of what you're looking for be something that doesn't matter?
Which is exactly what I want in a monster manual entry. I don't want possible suggestions or examples of context, because 9 times out of 10 I won't use it that way anyway. Even if each dragon came with a suggested lair, after you use it, then what? No more of that colour dragon ever in your games?
The problem with this is where do you stop? Just the solos? Maybe some elites? But what if I really like orcs, and want more details and maybe an example warcamp.
It's not a bad thing at all to want these things, but the Monster Manual isn't the place for it.
D&D, and almost any RPG, is built like this. Unless you're using modules (which will then have all you want), as a DM you're the one building the world and context for the players to interact with. How can it not be expected for the DM to fill in the blanks? It's their job.
Which are what supplements like the Draconomicons are for. To provide all the details that you're wanting, without taking away from the basic core book where such details may be taking up space that could have given the orc-lover another couple of orc types to use.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
Hey, it's a long one, replying to a lot.
It's not my intent to offend, but I think it's pretty safe to say at this point that the noncombat aspects of 4e did not work this well for many players, or they wouldn't be talking about the "three pillars" and raving about exploration and interaction in 5e. If they worked for you, that's superawesometimes, but they didn't work for a lot of people, and I don't think that's a controversial statement at this point.
I don't know what you plan on using monsters in, if not encounters. If you like to tinker with them yourself, that's superawesometimes, but a database of monster stats seems to me more appropriate to an online compendium than a physical book you will read through. It goes back to that "Consume, Engage, Cherish" discussion. I need to be Engaged first and foremost. And it's impossible to engage without a context for the information you're seeing. Raw numbers aren't engaging.
"Do what you need!" is the single most useless piece of advice I ever received as a DM. It seems obvious to me that DMs should always do what they need. It's in the job description, practically. "DM's control the game." Ergo, they can do what they want or need to make the game go.
What do I need to do? What is cool about this monster? What encounters and plotlines can I use it in? What does it do when adventurers aren't showing up to ruin it's day? How do I react to what the PC's do to it?
I don't know what I need it to do before I use it in a game. What I need at that moment I DO use it is for the game to tell me what it does. I don't need reassurance that I can do whatever I want. I need empowerment.
4e didn't give me that empowerment with its dragons. Except in combat. 3e, in contrast, did. It was only a little bit of space to note that blue dragons can dehydrate water and create illusions, but that empowers me to create an interesting and compelling multifaceted threat in a way that 5 different ways to shoot lightning in my party's face does not. It is mechanically more interesting over the course of an entire adventure, rather than just at the big fight.
Sounds like you want the compendium. Which is an awesome and indispensable tool, but not something I'd want WotC to print out, slap between two hardcovers, scatter with some art and charge me $40 for. Books are no longer the best medium for a directory of things. You're going to need to Engage me to get me to bother with it.
You can at least start with giving me dungeons and dragons in a game called Dungeons & Dragons.
The thing is, when you start doing things like detailing an orc warcamp, or a dragon lair, you also detail things like, say, the animals that live nearby, the traps that they use, the leaders that they have, the variants that occur, and you have something that any DM, new or old, can plunk down in front of her party tonight and use, without any major prep required.
And each individual bit can still be broken out and tossed into a compendium for those who want to prepare their own dragon lair.
Major difference being, with enough context, I no longer have to do it all myself. I export the boring work of detailing an orc camp out to the Monster Manual, and I can spend more time worrying about where I'd put that orc camp in my world.
FWIW, some 2e monsters, and many 1e monsters (especially humanoids) had this kind of built into their monster descriptions. Check out the orc description in the 2e MM: aside from a map, it gives me all I need to plunk orcs down anywhere in my world. An orc statblock is a fairly boring thing in and of itself (looks like most other humanoid statblocks). An orc camp is a useful thing, though.
I also think the "quantity over quality" approach to MM's is distinctly unnecessary from a publishing standpoint. After just a few books, the market reaches a saturation point where moar monsters doesn't add much to the game. Statistically, if you use 5 different statblocks in every combat for 10 combats per level over 10 levels (roughly the amount of time people spend playing a campaign according to Mearls), you use only 500 unique stat blocks (with even distribution over those 10 levels no less). That's less than two monster manuals, let alone tricks like reskinning, modding, templating, and ability swapping.
Thirdly, if you provide DMs with a way to usefully generate their own statblocks (a very useful addition from 4e), you don't NEED to give them squat. You will have all the statblocks you ever need right there in front of you. If you run out or feel like changing things up or want a particular thing, you can make it.
Given ALL of this, and more, I really think the idea of a MM as an alphabetical directory of statblocks is really kind of quixotic. At the very least, you could present it like some sort of medieval bestiary, full of rumor and hearsay and in-world color. But even that isn't as useful as a text brimming with a smaller number of creatures ready with all the necessary bits and fobs to slap into your game right now.
And then you can sell me another one in a few months.
And then you can sell me compendium access so that I can make my own.
And then you have all my money, and you win.
It's not my job as a DM to sit alone in my bedroom and carefully hand-craft an entire night's adventure from a few statblocks and my own chutzpah.
It's my job as a DM to run an active D&D game, and that means filling in the blanks for me, or at least giving me something like MadLibs so I can fill them in on the spot with a random die roll or something.
DMing, to me, is about playing the game, not preparing to play the game.
herrozerro said:
It's not my intent to offend, but I think it's pretty safe to say at this point that the noncombat aspects of 4e did not work this well for many players, or they wouldn't be talking about the "three pillars" and raving about exploration and interaction in 5e. If they worked for you, that's superawesometimes, but they didn't work for a lot of people, and I don't think that's a controversial statement at this point.
Stornomu said:
I don't know what you plan on using monsters in, if not encounters. If you like to tinker with them yourself, that's superawesometimes, but a database of monster stats seems to me more appropriate to an online compendium than a physical book you will read through. It goes back to that "Consume, Engage, Cherish" discussion. I need to be Engaged first and foremost. And it's impossible to engage without a context for the information you're seeing. Raw numbers aren't engaging.
Klaus said:
"Do what you need!" is the single most useless piece of advice I ever received as a DM. It seems obvious to me that DMs should always do what they need. It's in the job description, practically. "DM's control the game." Ergo, they can do what they want or need to make the game go.
What do I need to do? What is cool about this monster? What encounters and plotlines can I use it in? What does it do when adventurers aren't showing up to ruin it's day? How do I react to what the PC's do to it?
I don't know what I need it to do before I use it in a game. What I need at that moment I DO use it is for the game to tell me what it does. I don't need reassurance that I can do whatever I want. I need empowerment.
4e didn't give me that empowerment with its dragons. Except in combat. 3e, in contrast, did. It was only a little bit of space to note that blue dragons can dehydrate water and create illusions, but that empowers me to create an interesting and compelling multifaceted threat in a way that 5 different ways to shoot lightning in my party's face does not. It is mechanically more interesting over the course of an entire adventure, rather than just at the big fight.
fenriswolf456 said:
Sounds like you want the compendium. Which is an awesome and indispensable tool, but not something I'd want WotC to print out, slap between two hardcovers, scatter with some art and charge me $40 for. Books are no longer the best medium for a directory of things. You're going to need to Engage me to get me to bother with it.
fenriswolf456 said:
You can at least start with giving me dungeons and dragons in a game called Dungeons & Dragons.
The thing is, when you start doing things like detailing an orc warcamp, or a dragon lair, you also detail things like, say, the animals that live nearby, the traps that they use, the leaders that they have, the variants that occur, and you have something that any DM, new or old, can plunk down in front of her party tonight and use, without any major prep required.
And each individual bit can still be broken out and tossed into a compendium for those who want to prepare their own dragon lair.
Major difference being, with enough context, I no longer have to do it all myself. I export the boring work of detailing an orc camp out to the Monster Manual, and I can spend more time worrying about where I'd put that orc camp in my world.
FWIW, some 2e monsters, and many 1e monsters (especially humanoids) had this kind of built into their monster descriptions. Check out the orc description in the 2e MM: aside from a map, it gives me all I need to plunk orcs down anywhere in my world. An orc statblock is a fairly boring thing in and of itself (looks like most other humanoid statblocks). An orc camp is a useful thing, though.
I also think the "quantity over quality" approach to MM's is distinctly unnecessary from a publishing standpoint. After just a few books, the market reaches a saturation point where moar monsters doesn't add much to the game. Statistically, if you use 5 different statblocks in every combat for 10 combats per level over 10 levels (roughly the amount of time people spend playing a campaign according to Mearls), you use only 500 unique stat blocks (with even distribution over those 10 levels no less). That's less than two monster manuals, let alone tricks like reskinning, modding, templating, and ability swapping.
Thirdly, if you provide DMs with a way to usefully generate their own statblocks (a very useful addition from 4e), you don't NEED to give them squat. You will have all the statblocks you ever need right there in front of you. If you run out or feel like changing things up or want a particular thing, you can make it.
Given ALL of this, and more, I really think the idea of a MM as an alphabetical directory of statblocks is really kind of quixotic. At the very least, you could present it like some sort of medieval bestiary, full of rumor and hearsay and in-world color. But even that isn't as useful as a text brimming with a smaller number of creatures ready with all the necessary bits and fobs to slap into your game right now.
And then you can sell me another one in a few months.
And then you can sell me compendium access so that I can make my own.
And then you have all my money, and you win.
fenriswolf456 said:
It's not my job as a DM to sit alone in my bedroom and carefully hand-craft an entire night's adventure from a few statblocks and my own chutzpah.
It's my job as a DM to run an active D&D game, and that means filling in the blanks for me, or at least giving me something like MadLibs so I can fill them in on the spot with a random die roll or something.
DMing, to me, is about playing the game, not preparing to play the game.
Last edited:
Incenjucar
Legend
They already had a book of pre-made encounters. They didn't make a second one.
herrozerro
First Post
Once again im not seeing what the issue is, or im not understanding you. it seems to boil down to some kind of disconnect as to what a MM should have.
You seem to think it should be some kind of mini setting book. while i think it should be chock full of monster stats.
You seem to think it should be some kind of mini setting book. while i think it should be chock full of monster stats.
herrozerro
First Post
Not to mention a 1-30 adventure path, plus several other publihed adventures and dozens of online adventures.
in all honesty there is enough published adventures to last for several campaigns.
I dont see why this content needsto be in the core books, where i'd rather have the tool kit for creating my own stuff.
Stormonu
Legend
Last I think I'll push back on the subject, because normally I agree with Kamikaze.
Anyway, I think my favorite moster format was in 2E, with the full-page monster entries (Though, these you could probably fit more info into them if the powers/abilities wording were cleaned up to modern specs). I enjoyed reading the old Ecology of... articles, but they weren't something I could sit down with just before a game to read through, and I never actually incorporated any of the special "rules" those articles brought up.
HOWEVER, back in the days I was playing 1E, I didn't own a monster manual - not for about 5 years down the road. Instead, I just used the monster stat blocks in the 1E DMG. Anything beyond those stat blocks, I just made it up or did without. Even when I did get the MM, those monster blocks are even shorter than the 4E ones, and they were good enough to get me through until 2E rolled along.
What I'm trying to get at is that "just a statblock" can be good enough. More detail (er, to a point) is nice, but it's not necessary. I don't need or want a 4 page write-up on a black dragon, its den and surroundings and the lizardmen raiders its cowing into stealing treasure for its lair. I just want the dragon and lizardmen stat blocks, I can do the stuff in the middle and get the adventure idea or detail from some other source. I don't want to stare at those four pages, wondering what three creatures may have gotten the axe for an encounter I probably won't use because my players have already read it during their perusal of the book (looking for familiars or animal companions, they say).
Anyway, I think my favorite moster format was in 2E, with the full-page monster entries (Though, these you could probably fit more info into them if the powers/abilities wording were cleaned up to modern specs). I enjoyed reading the old Ecology of... articles, but they weren't something I could sit down with just before a game to read through, and I never actually incorporated any of the special "rules" those articles brought up.
HOWEVER, back in the days I was playing 1E, I didn't own a monster manual - not for about 5 years down the road. Instead, I just used the monster stat blocks in the 1E DMG. Anything beyond those stat blocks, I just made it up or did without. Even when I did get the MM, those monster blocks are even shorter than the 4E ones, and they were good enough to get me through until 2E rolled along.
What I'm trying to get at is that "just a statblock" can be good enough. More detail (er, to a point) is nice, but it's not necessary. I don't need or want a 4 page write-up on a black dragon, its den and surroundings and the lizardmen raiders its cowing into stealing treasure for its lair. I just want the dragon and lizardmen stat blocks, I can do the stuff in the middle and get the adventure idea or detail from some other source. I don't want to stare at those four pages, wondering what three creatures may have gotten the axe for an encounter I probably won't use because my players have already read it during their perusal of the book (looking for familiars or animal companions, they say).
