-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
General Monster Manual 3 Thread
- Thread starter Obryn
- Start date
Drammattex
First Post
The real key to understanding how the MM3 monster entries were written lies in this DDI article, for those with access. Regarding the In Combat section, this is the essence of it:
Mike Mearls: The tactics section has transformed into the “… in Combat” section to give writers more flexibility. It can talk about specific tactics, illustrate roleplay hooks, present storytelling methods, and offer other interesting ideas for bringing a monster to life in the campaign. Think of this paragraph as advice on the best way to make the creature an interesting foe. That can be uses of a power combined with specific terrain or tactics, general guidelines on how these guys prefer to fight, or roleplaying advice on battle cries or how to otherwise depict the creature. It should reveal something about the creature’s nature and how that nature is reflected in combat. As an example, the skulk entry highlights how these creature go after downed foes to satisfy their bloodlust and ties that into their hatred for civilization and cities. That’s a unique tactic which grows out of the skulk’s backstory and makes them unique foes.
So, when looking over the In Combat section think of it in those (flexible) terms. In the banderhobb, nymph, and yeti entries, that section illustrates the mood, feel, or tone of one or more of the creature's powers. For those particular creatures it's a narrative aid to key the DM in to how this creature feels or behaves in combat or how one or more of its powers work story-wise. It's really just a quick illustration of a power or two, to communicate its mood--not an arbitrary piece of short fiction.
In my experience, a monster's tactics are greatly influenced by the encounter's terrain, its allies in the encounter, and whatever is happening in the story. Since the new stat blocks give you a pretty solid idea of what you generally want to do with the creatures, I chose to go the illustrative route to show how the monster and/or its powers behave rather than write a script for what attacks it uses and when, since in games I've run those tactics have often been rather circumstantial. I understand that point of view won't make everyone happy, but I'm not sure there's a right choice that would (heh, though not for lack of trying, believe me). Since the Compendium and Monster Builder are my primary resources when putting an adventure together, I typically consult the Monster Manual for a creature's story and flavor--and that's why I tended to lend more focus to those mood, flavor, and story aspects.
@ Scribble: the dark master and history of the banderhobb is for you to determine. For me, the ambiguity made them creepier. Perhaps someone will define those things in a product someday, but I don't know that anything can ever be as cool as the way a DM interprets them and sets them in his or her own campaign. By way of example, I think I was happier with LOST before the show started answering questions, especially if I found out I didn't like the answers.
That's my three and a half cents on the why's and the wherefore's of MM3 "fluff," at any rate.
Mike Mearls: The tactics section has transformed into the “… in Combat” section to give writers more flexibility. It can talk about specific tactics, illustrate roleplay hooks, present storytelling methods, and offer other interesting ideas for bringing a monster to life in the campaign. Think of this paragraph as advice on the best way to make the creature an interesting foe. That can be uses of a power combined with specific terrain or tactics, general guidelines on how these guys prefer to fight, or roleplaying advice on battle cries or how to otherwise depict the creature. It should reveal something about the creature’s nature and how that nature is reflected in combat. As an example, the skulk entry highlights how these creature go after downed foes to satisfy their bloodlust and ties that into their hatred for civilization and cities. That’s a unique tactic which grows out of the skulk’s backstory and makes them unique foes.
So, when looking over the In Combat section think of it in those (flexible) terms. In the banderhobb, nymph, and yeti entries, that section illustrates the mood, feel, or tone of one or more of the creature's powers. For those particular creatures it's a narrative aid to key the DM in to how this creature feels or behaves in combat or how one or more of its powers work story-wise. It's really just a quick illustration of a power or two, to communicate its mood--not an arbitrary piece of short fiction.
In my experience, a monster's tactics are greatly influenced by the encounter's terrain, its allies in the encounter, and whatever is happening in the story. Since the new stat blocks give you a pretty solid idea of what you generally want to do with the creatures, I chose to go the illustrative route to show how the monster and/or its powers behave rather than write a script for what attacks it uses and when, since in games I've run those tactics have often been rather circumstantial. I understand that point of view won't make everyone happy, but I'm not sure there's a right choice that would (heh, though not for lack of trying, believe me). Since the Compendium and Monster Builder are my primary resources when putting an adventure together, I typically consult the Monster Manual for a creature's story and flavor--and that's why I tended to lend more focus to those mood, flavor, and story aspects.
@ Scribble: the dark master and history of the banderhobb is for you to determine. For me, the ambiguity made them creepier. Perhaps someone will define those things in a product someday, but I don't know that anything can ever be as cool as the way a DM interprets them and sets them in his or her own campaign. By way of example, I think I was happier with LOST before the show started answering questions, especially if I found out I didn't like the answers.
That's my three and a half cents on the why's and the wherefore's of MM3 "fluff," at any rate.
I disagree vehemently! It can lead to great stories of fun (like the risk-averse wizard who is always WAY back suddenly being chased down by the defender and knocked unconscious). It can be rather inconvenient, but being stunned, Imobilized (if melee) and blinded generally suck more because you can't usually do anything but make a save. You can at least laugh when the most damage a character takes in a fight is from a crit by his own teammate.
I love the book and the Catoblepas might be my favorite monster in the entire 4E game right now.
Last edited:
Scribble
First Post
Oh- I hope I didn't come off as disliking that?
I was just saying kind of got the feeling that some of those things were done that way to intentionally convey the "feel" of the monster, or heighten the mystery (ie the Banderhobb) as opposed to being just poorly done or something.
I agree with you about LOST... It was still my favorite show, but once the questions started being answered, part of the fun of debating about what the meaning of everything was went away.
Otterscrubber
First Post
I was a bit skeptical about the monsters doing significantly more damage for the simple reason that we run smaller groups sometimes and this requires us to have a leader that is good with healing. But I suppose we can always tweak the monster levels there. One thing I do like though is now we can run a decent fight with 9th level monster for a 9th level party. Before to make a fight interesting it always had to be a few levels higher than the party level or it was a cakewalk. This resulted in the PCs levelling faster than I had intended for my campaign. I actually found myself saying "wow, they are 9th level already?" I think this will allows for the type of level progression intended by the designers and for plot development.
Drammattex
First Post
Oh, not at all! I'd seen one or two other posts here and elsewhere from folks who very much disliked the In Combat text, and others who seemed confused or conflicted about the purpose or direction of the er... fluff. I can't speak for all the designers, but I can at least clarify my own direction/goal based on the info Mike provided.
Indeed. I think Battlestar Galactica suffered the same kind of fate. I liked it though.
Quickleaf
Legend
After reading all the reviews and tidbits in this thread I'm excited to see the new monsters - it sounds like there were some creative minds behind the MM3. I will definitely be picking it up once my FLGS gets it in stock!
One question: How in the world did solo stun-lock and low damage get thru playtesting? Within my first 3 or 4 games as DM both these issues became glaringly obvious. After a little longer I began to notice solo fights needed more excitement, which I think was later described in DMG2 as "when bloodied" effects. But it was obvious, and this was my first time DMing 4e and most of the group's first time playing 4e. It makes you really wonder just what goes on during playtesting!
I too would like to see older monsters revised to account for these fixes. Maybe some revised versions of iconic MM1 monsters could be released thru DDi or one of the Essentials supplements?
One question: How in the world did solo stun-lock and low damage get thru playtesting? Within my first 3 or 4 games as DM both these issues became glaringly obvious. After a little longer I began to notice solo fights needed more excitement, which I think was later described in DMG2 as "when bloodied" effects. But it was obvious, and this was my first time DMing 4e and most of the group's first time playing 4e. It makes you really wonder just what goes on during playtesting!
I too would like to see older monsters revised to account for these fixes. Maybe some revised versions of iconic MM1 monsters could be released thru DDi or one of the Essentials supplements?
Drammattex
First Post
I did the stat blocks for all my monsters and created all of their abilities and powers, but unfortunately I don't have any non-NDA-protected insight on the new formulae or tables for monster damage.
Thank God for the new stat block, though. In retrospect I'd been a little terrified of trying to run the kraken, with the number of powers I gave it. But if you take a look at the way it's laid out in the stat block, I think you can actually wrap your mind around it. When the PCs grow up a few levels I'll do it. But what to use for a mini... If only I could get my hands on those RPGA ship tiles.
Similar Threads
