D&D 4E Worst Monsters in 4e

[doctorhook]

Wotc should release a new book revising MM1 monsters. Or just revise them on errata or DDI.

My fingers are crossed, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Aegeri]

Wotc should release a new book revising MM1 monsters. Or just revise them on errata or DDI.

The monster vault is exactly this, it is revising a great number of originally published monsters and some new ones in one package.

 

[OchreJelly]

Its funny, see, while I agree wraiths rank right up there as monsters that can cause horrible encounters it really is pretty situational. I had 4 wraiths and a mad wraith in one encounter. It was TOUGH, but it wasn't grindy. The party did have a good amount of radiant damage since they had a sun/life/etc focused cleric, and the encounter had some features that let the players unleash extra radiant damage etc. Worked out well. I agree though if you drop a few wraiths into an encounter and just expect any old random party to blow through them its likely going to get ugly. I guess the real question is are highly situational monsters like this really bad monsters? They're definitely going to mean you have to plan encounters well, but it seems like a sort of different 'bad' than the Dracolich or Purple Worm that just suck.

I don't mind situational monsters at all if you craft an interesting set piece around it, and tailor it to the party, which is what it sounds like you did. My problem was I ran the published encounter as is. I considered rewriting it because it sounded fishy on paper, but I ran out of time prepping for that night's session. In hindsight I wish I'd rewritten it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The monster vault is exactly this, it is revising a great number of originally published monsters and some new ones in one package.

I'm still betting they will just give all the revised monsters slightly different names. So the existing wraith will continue to exist, but there will be a 'wraith pillager' or whatever the heck random name they give it. That way you'll have a new improved version in the vault and DDI but anyone that needs to use the original versions will still have access to them in DDI/MB and there will be no need to 'errata' the MM1 (it would be kind of a silly errata, here's a whole new book, we replaced every page!).

 

[Zaran]

I'm still betting they will just give all the revised monsters slightly different names. So the existing wraith will continue to exist, but there will be a 'wraith pillager' or whatever the heck random name they give it. That way you'll have a new improved version in the vault and DDI but anyone that needs to use the original versions will still have access to them in DDI/MB and there will be no need to 'errata' the MM1 (it would be kind of a silly errata, here's a whole new book, we replaced every page!).

Yeah, that's sort of how I expect any future MMs too. They can put in an Orc Puppykicker and put all kinds of background info into the entry and not have to redo anything in the first MM. I also think they are rather proud and don't want to admit that their original stuff that was playtested for years needs correction or at least that much correction.

 

[Obryn]

Yeah, that's sort of how I expect any future MMs too. They can put in an Orc Puppykicker and put all kinds of background info into the entry and not have to redo anything in the first MM. I also think they are rather proud and don't want to admit that their original stuff that was playtested for years needs correction or at least that much correction.

I wouldn't attribute that kind of motivation to them. If they thought everything that came before was perfect, why revise it for MM2 and MM3? Or have an employee suggest ways to fix MM1/2 monsters?

If anything, it's because of the promise there'd be no "4.5" no matter how much some of us would love it.

-O

 

[KidSnide]

I also think they are rather proud and don't want to admit that their original stuff that was playtested for years needs correction or at least that much correction.

I wouldn't attribute that kind of motivation to them. If they thought everything that came before was perfect, why revise it for MM2 and MM3? Or have an employee suggest ways to fix MM1/2 monsters?

If anything, it's because of the promise there'd be no "4.5" no matter how much some of us would love it.

I think this is pretty clear. They render monsters obsolete by creating new ones, but they don't change the old ones because they are senstive to the total amount of errata.

It is very similar to their treatment of powers. WotC will errata a power or feat if it is overpowered because it disrupts game balance, but they don't fix a weak power or feat. They just put out a new power or feat that fulfills the same purpose without sucking. In the same way, they'll errata a few monsters, but they won't replace a monster just because it's boring. Instead, they'll put out a more interesting version of the same beast.

And, as a consumer, I don't feel like I can complain too much about it. After all, when the MM1 was written, all of the designers were neophytes at 4e. In a complex system, it takes a while to learn what works and what doesn't. Personally, I'm happy that WotC is now putting out monsters that are a lot more fun to fight than the ones from the first set.

-KS

 

[Rechan]

I think this is pretty clear. They render monsters obsolete by creating new ones, but they don't change the old ones because they are senstive to the total amount of errata.

More like sensitive to their fanbase.

There are all ready people complaining about how there's too much Errata and that the PHB1 is obsolete because of it.

 

[doctorhook]

I think this is pretty clear. They render monsters obsolete by creating new ones, but they don't change the old ones because they are senstive to the total amount of errata.

It is very similar to their treatment of powers. WotC will errata a power or feat if it is overpowered because it disrupts game balance, but they don't fix a weak power or feat. They just put out a new power or feat that fulfills the same purpose without sucking. In the same way, they'll errata a few monsters, but they won't replace a monster just because it's boring. Instead, they'll put out a more interesting version of the same beast.

And, as a consumer, I don't feel like I can complain too much about it. After all, when the MM1 was written, all of the designers were neophytes at 4e. In a complex system, it takes a while to learn what works and what doesn't. Personally, I'm happy that WotC is now putting out monsters that are a lot more fun to fight than the ones from the first set.

-KS

True that, and agreed on all counts.

FWIW, no reasonable amount of closed playtesting could ever have hoped to provide the feedback that two years of open playtesting by a customer base of millions has. It was almost inevitable that unforeseen design flaws in MM1 and PH1 would be apparent by now. Overall, I'm satisfied with WotC's efforts so far, because it's the best that could reasonably be expected.

 

[Rechan]

True that, and agreed on all counts.

FWIW, no reasonable amount of closed playtesting could ever have hoped to provide the feedback that two years of open playtesting by a customer base of millions has. It was almost inevitable that unforeseen design flaws in MM1 and PH1 would be apparent by now. Overall, I'm satisfied with WotC's efforts so far, because it's the best that could reasonably be expected.

At the same time, things that (at least I feel) need fixing don't get "fixed" after those playtests. Like classes. Sure, you can errata a feat or offer a new build, but the V frame classes (Cleric, Paladin, Warlock) are handicapped with the split nature of the class. Add the warlord to the list as far as "classes needing a revision". But you can't overhaul a class without, well, reprinting and such.