D&D 4E Things wrong with 4e: Dragons

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
jshaft37 said:
I want tools AND fleshed out information.

Something like a quick monster-generation system that lets you create any monster you want, an online database of stats, and a template system (tools) AND a monster manual full of more than just combat stats?

Sounds brilliant. ;)

I'm totally on board with them providing me with prefab basic stuff, letting me worry about the unique villains in my game. That's on target for what I want out of an MM.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

jshaft37

Explorer
Something like a quick monster-generation system that lets you create any monster you want, an online database of stats, and a template system (tools) AND a monster manual full of more than just combat stats?

Sounds brilliant. ;)

I'm totally on board with them providing me with prefab basic stuff, letting me worry about the unique villains in my game. That's on target for what I want out of an MM.

I'm more likely to reskin another monster than create something from scratch, but I agree we're on the same page.
 

fenriswolf456

First Post
It ain't fluff. It's useful game mechanical information. A blue dragon using Mirage Arcana isn't superfluous description, it's an essential part of using that monster in the game.

Sure it is, and if the creature has the ability, it's listed. 4E blue dragons aren't illusionists, and don't have Mirage Arcana. If they did, it would be listed, with a description of the ability, which then gives you ideas on what it's capable of. Admittedly, 4E has few out-of-combat abilities listed on monsters, seemingly by design ideals.

OH BOY MORE PREP WORK! Thanks, Paperwork Fairy!

You seem to be missing the point of what I want out of an MM: stuff I can use to play the game. Not prep. Play.

Dragons serve two basic purposes. They can either be a dangerous encounter that the PCs come across, or they're the BBEG. Everything you need for the dragon to be a dangerous encounter is right there on the page. The issue is that you want your spell-casting scheming blue dragon. Unfortunately, you're playing the edition where blue dragons are aggressive forces of elemental lightning. The basic 4E blue dragon doesn't have the scheming illusionist side, where it waylays and wears down its opponents. It's an aggressive predator that swoops down out of the sky and pummels the party like the sudden storm it personifies. Everything is there, even in the terse 4E micro-fluff. It says where they're commonly found, how they usually approach getting into combat, it gives you a stat block so you can see how intelligent they are and emphasizes particular skills. It gives sample encounters with peons. The only thing it doesn't do is draw a lair, which you may not even use if it's an encounter outside.

If you want something more out of your dragon, you're going to have to do some prep. It's not like it has to be a lot of work. It certainly can be if you really want to detail and flesh things out. If you seriously don't want to do any prep work whatsoever, it really sounds like you need either pre-written modules, or books detailing things lairs and abilities like the Dragon manuals, both of which the publisher provides.

When I don't want to do prep, a toolbox is useless to me when what I need is a chair, RIGHT NOW, because I'm sitting in front of my players and they are looking at me expectantly and hoping for an exciting adventure.

Toolbox is all well and good -- it's perfect DMG and online supplement material. It should absolutely be there. But the game also needs to present me with prefab stuff, and it needs to do this right out the gate, in the core books, because if I'm a newbie DM and I want to run a game tonight, I need to be able to.

I should be able to pick up the game (the three core rulebooks) and play the thing that very night if I want to, just by following the instructions on the page.

Which you totally can do. Everything is right there. Is it going to be some epic Tolkienesque adventure full of subtle plots and nation-changing scope? Not likely, because no time has been put into developing such an extensive massive plot. Can't think of what monsters to use or a quick plot idea? The DMG provides a sample adventure for you and your buds to jump right into.

But everything requires some prep time to some degree. As a player, you have to make your character. You can't just roll randomly, you have to sit down and put it together, generate your stats, pick your race/class, pick your powers and feats. As a DM, you either arrive on game night with some sort of idea of how you want things to go, such as you reading up on the Blue Dragon, and seeing how it uses its illusionist abilities, so you're already planning on how to wear down your PCs before the dragon finally comes out to fight. Or you arrive with absolutely no plan, which means you're doing your prep on the fly, because you're having to determine what the PCs are facing as things go, then read up on them, then read up on their abilities and minions and traps, and if using miniatures, setting up the map.


And, I think it's worth mentioning again, this isn't about "fluff vs. crunch." What I miss about dragons in 4e isn't fluff. It's all useful game information, it's just not combat information (4e provides me, well, TOO much info on that front). Since the game is more than combat, I don't think it's asking too much for WotC to provide DMs with more than combat things to do.

But for all intents and purposes, that's what a MM entry is for. That's why the stat block gives defenses and hit points and combat damage, because its meant to be used for when the PCs get into a fight with one. Could the entry provide some more info on say personality and motivations? Certainly. But in the end it comes down to the context, which is where a DM comes in and decides just what the situation is and how this particular creature will react. And likely there were plans on producing the Draconomicons from the get-go, where they knew they were going to provide a lot more detailed information on their iconic dragons.

Those NPCs are going to deal with various creatures throughout the realm. I want someone else to do the leg-work for me on those parts. I don't really want to design every aspect of the Gnolls that worship the Demon, I want to spend my time working on the Demon itself and therefore giving my players interesting interactions that they choose.

But aren't the characters going to be meeting up with these worshipping gnolls a fair bit, probably more than the demon itself? If not, then it doesn't matter if they have no details. If so, then you would develop aspects of the cultists, since you're wanting to make it interesting for the PCs when they come across them.

I'm not sure what you expect the MM to give you. They present the 'basic' creature. If they're being used for a specific purpose in your campaign that's more specialized, well, the publishers can't anticipate your needs and develop them fully for you. And if they do, then such specialization can then make the creatures harder to use in other ways than the 'generic' version.

I can get much more out of my games spending the lion's share of my time designing patrons and villians and other NPCs rather than designing goblin bands, orcish hordes, or gnoll cults.

Again, it depends on your focus. If you feel that the these goblin bands or gnoll cults aren't worth the time to invest in developing, what does it matter if you're using a generic stat block? Why is the town smithy more worthy of being fully developed than the gnoll high priest?
 

jshaft37

Explorer
But aren't the characters going to be meeting up with these worshipping gnolls a fair bit, probably more than the demon itself? If not, then it doesn't matter if they have no details. If so, then you would develop aspects of the cultists, since you're wanting to make it interesting for the PCs when they come across them.

Again, it depends on your focus. If you feel that the these goblin bands or gnoll cults aren't worth the time to invest in developing, what does it matter if you're using a generic stat block? Why is the town smithy more worthy of being fully developed than the gnoll high priest?


Not everything in my games are on the "micro" level, some things are more detailed than others, because I only have so much prep time, and not everything must be equal. If the NPC needs more detail I can always adlib. I don't do any more work than I need to, and I will always use information from other sources with some minor tweaks or reskinning instead of creating from scratch. DMing isn't my job, its my hobby, I want to have fun playing the game, not a chore to make the game playable.

I will develop a few NPC's among those gnolls if I believe that some will be more interesting and will serve for better interaction with the PCs. Aside from the Demon I have plans for 3-4 gnoll or their associates as NPCs. Otherwise the 40 other gnolls that they are not going to interact with other than possibly combat don't really need to be fully developed. What I really want is information to describe the mood, tone, imagery, setting, etc of the pack on the whole. If a character wants to ask a question about gnoll lore or society, especially a question I may not have anticipated, it might be nice to have a resource for that information.


I'm not sure what you expect the MM to give you. They present the 'basic' creature. If they're being used for a specific purpose in your campaign that's more specialized, well, the publishers can't anticipate your needs and develop them fully for you. And if they do, then such specialization can then make the creatures harder to use in other ways than the 'generic' version.

I like the setup of the Monster Vault, Threats to the Nentir Vale, and the 2E monster books. I would probably like to see more emphasis placed on iconic monsters that will likely be in most campaigns (kobolds, orcs, goblins, ogres, trolls, dragons, etc) than some of the fringe creatures that would probably be used sparingly or in specific situations. I'd wager that orc tribes come up in more campaigns than aboleths. If I wanted to use an aboleth, it would certainly be something that I have planned for.
 

A book is in every way except one an inferior reference to a digital compendium. The one way that it isn't -- in that it is more accessible at the table -- is kind of moot if you have to do prep anyway.

Except that the books are most needed when prep fails and I'm improvising like mad. When prepping I can use tools and lookups.
 


this is just getting silly, if your improvising like mad why do you need such information in books? thats not improvising, its prepping while you game.
... seriously?

I'm improvising what's there and what people do. I'd rather not have to make up entire statblocks as well as the NPC actions.
 

herrozerro

First Post
... seriously?

I'm improvising what's there and what people do. I'd rather not have to make up entire statblocks as well as the NPC actions.

Alright i might have taken it a bit far. But even then, i dont see how having all the information proposed in a monster manual is not the best method.

If the level of detail is indeed presented and you are "winging it" its still alot of information to digest on the fly.

Imo, 4e while light on the fluff is almost spot on for an improv monster manual.

It has usually an introductory paragraph or two, followed by some sample creatures and tactics. It includes some sample encounters that make sense.(open to gnoll and you'll get some sample encounters with some hyena henchcreatures) and finally a few quick lore pieces.

Pretty much anything you'll ever need to improvise a game.

Im just advocating the books that go indepth should be that, separate books for topics covered in detail. I dont want a tonne of undead material in the mm if im never going to use them. I'd buy open grave if i need tonnes of info.

Same with the dragons, i'd highly reccomend both draconomicons to anyone wanting to run a dragon heavy game.

What i dont like is space wasted in a generic core book on non core material. I wouldnt want a campaign setting in my core books i'd rather keep them as generic as possible so i could run more easily any game i wanted.
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
fenriswolf456 said:
4E blue dragons aren't illusionists, and don't have Mirage Arcana. If they did, it would be listed, with a description of the ability, which then gives you ideas on what it's capable of. Admittedly, 4E has few out-of-combat abilities listed on monsters, seemingly by design ideals.

Now you're starting to see how my issues were linked to the monster philosophy of 4e. Dragons in 4e fail for me because they don't present a multidimensional antagonist. They're not a multidimensional antagonist because 4e decided that the only point of monsters was to fight them.

fenriswolf456 said:
Dragons serve two basic purposes. They can either be a dangerous encounter that the PCs come across, or they're the BBEG.

That's not true for me.

Creatures in D&D serve only one purpose: to provide the elements of an interesting game.

They can do this by being combat antagonists, but they can also do this by being enigmas, by being potential allies, by being in interesting areas, by being interesting characters, or in a hundred other ways.

Dragons specifically serve a few secondary purposes. For one, they are an iconic representation of the D&D brand -- right in the name. For another, they are quintessential villains. For a third, they are major powers in the worlds they exist in.

In 5e, I'd imagine that a dragon can serve as an antagonist on all 3 pillars. I'd also imagine that WotC could provide me with actual information for using them in ways other than as combat engines.

Combat is not enough for me. I need more. Out of the box. And WotC could provide it.

fenriswolf456 said:
I'm not sure what you expect the MM to give you.

I've attached a PDF of a quick mock-up Kobold entry that's something vaguely like what I'd like the MM to give me. Add an illustration or two and a lair map, maybe some treasure information, maybe format it in a way that's a little easier to use, but basically, this.

FWIW, that's 11 stat blocks (6 of them traps, but still...) on 6 pages. 7-8 maybe if you add illos and a map. And then you probably wouldn't have separate entries for things like Dire Rats.
 

Attachments

  • quick mock-up.pdf
    105.2 KB · Views: 123

herrozerro

First Post
After reading your document, its better then i thought but its still too much.

First of all the kobold allies should be their own entries, under vermin or where ever they would go, their not kobolds and should be referanced by book and page where they are.

Same with the traps, i dont mind if they are in the MM, (id rather them be there then the DMG) but they shouldnt clutter up the entry. Kobolds are far from the only creatures that use traps.

Taking those out sure i could see a paragraph or two on the other subject you touch on.

Though we probably are not that far off on our expectations for a mm.
 

Remove ads

Top