D&D 4E 4e Monster List - Dwarven Nosepicker & Elven Butt Scratcher

[KrazyHades]

As long as WotC doesn't go overboard, I love the concept of the same species having many types of monsters with very different flavor. It was (and still is) an enormous pain to level a group of goblins to differentiate their abilities (goblin wizard, goblin adept, goblin barbarian, whatever it is you feel like going for). Hopefully this will change things. It does a good job reflecting how 4E encounters will have more enemies and the fights will be more dynamic. Instead of 3E having encounters made of a mishmash of monsters from different species, copies of one monster, or a set of painfully leveled monsters of the same species, we see that it is instantly possible to make a cool Kobold encounter without boring yourself or your players.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I too really adore this new method of Monster Design. For all the reasons stated.

I also don't really mind cheesy names, simply because when it comes to gameplay, all the PCs/Players will know is; "its a... orc, kobold, goblin, etc." So the cheesy names are just there so it is easier to pick what you want to use without having to examine the stats closely.

I think they will get a fair number of monsters in, 500 monsters are a ton, plus not every monster will have say 5 variants so, most they said will have 2-4 variants... So there is probably atleast 200-300 monsters I think.

 

[The Little Raven]

Maybe they need a professional writer. Or just a lot less things to name.

Technically, they are professional writers, as were the majority of writers for D&D since it's inception. Professional writers gave us duckbunnies, flumphs, Castle Zygag, space hamsters, digesters, skum, and the like. I think nostalgia flavors perception far more than people want to admit.

 

[Lizard]

No. I would say that would be much worse than what we are getting. That set-up means you can't run anything straight out of the book, which can be a really big problem. Also, the current set-up, combined with 4E exception based monster design, means that you can pretty easily reverse engineer what you want out of the examples given, so it really is the best compromise between flexibility and customizability that I can think of.

I prefer a big box of generic lego; some people prefer the custom kits with lots of specialized pieces.

Someone complained about book flipping; to me, it's much easier to flip to a section of Monster Abilities, all in one place, then flip throughout the entire book looking for the special ability I want. ("Wait, was it the Gnoll Warcharger who had the power I want to put on this orc, or was it the Troll Ragemonger?")

I figure one of the first GSL products will be all the monster abilities stripped out and generified, instead of "Attack +6", they'll be "Attack Str+Level/2+1", for example.

 

[Lizard]

So, no ready-to-play monsters? No thanks.

The 'ready to play' is The Generic Warrior. Want different kinds? Swap some pieces around. The 4e design makes this trivial; why not take full advantage of it?

Because of thematic focuses for particular monster types and the inability to publish every conceivable concept in a single book?

My point. Which is more useful:
6 goblin specialists+6 orc specialist
1 goblin base, 1 orc base, 12 cool powers to use as you see fit?

I say the latter.

 

[cdrcjsn]

My point. Which is more useful:
6 goblin specialists+6 orc specialist
1 goblin base, 1 orc base, 12 cool powers to use as you see fit?

I say the latter.

The latter involves some extra writing on my part instead of just looking up the stats in the book.

I prefer the former. Going by WotC's stated goal of making things easier for the average DM, this seems to fit.

 

[Nom]

6 goblin specialists+6 orc specialist
1 goblin base, 1 orc base, 12 cool powers to use as you see fit?

I might have misunderstood, but doesn't 6 goblin specialists (2 powers each) + 6 orc specialists (2 powers) each work out to 6 goblin bases, 6 orc bases, and 12 cool powers to use as you see fit?

The other consideration is that - from a designer's perspective - generic is always harder to get right than specific.

If I have one goblin type with 2 powers, then I need to make sure those two powers work correctly together.

If I have one goblin type with 12 mix-n-match powers, then I need to make sure that any combo of those powers work correctly together.

This is partly why the PH powers have been so streamlined relative to 3E. If every power is a tweak of a single base mechanic it's a lot easier to avoid unintended interactions than if every power uses a different mechanic.

 

[Mistwell]

As long as there are stats for the creature itself without the extra video-gamey cheese added on I'll be fine with this. I just wish that they would realize what they think of as evocative and cool is usually hackneyed and lame.

Often I find that what some folks here think of as hackneyed and lame is evocative and cool.

 

[The Little Raven]

My point. Which is more useful:
6 goblin specialists+6 orc specialist
1 goblin base, 1 orc base, 12 cool powers to use as you see fit?

Pre-made monsters are more useful, since I have less and less time to do prep work every month.

3e went with the "base monster plus customization options," and your idea would be no different (except slightly different presentation). I'd rather have a few options that are very thematically appropriate, rather than having to put together a monster myself, since they aren't actually ready-made.

 

[The Little Raven]

Often I find that what some folks here think of as hackneyed and lame is evocative and cool.

I think nostalgia plays a bigger role than anyone cares to admit. I'm pretty sure that if they introduced some of the classic monsters in this day and age, they'd be disparaged for how ridiculous they are, or how silly their name is.