Monster Manuals: Things You Don't Kill

[Aegeri]

which begs the question of what happens in 4e when the druid WildShapes into one?

Nothing, because Wildshape in 4E no longer functions like that as a way of getting broken abilities on top of being able to cast spells anymore. So it's a rather irrelevant question now, because druids just don't work like that.

As for other points, I don't need to know stats of a housecat for anything meaningful in my games as an example. Mechanically, classes like the Druid no longer interact with such stats in a meaningful way so needing to know a housecats stealth is pointless. I could make my own housecat trivially, it would be a minion and its attacks would maybe do 1 damage with a +0 attack bonus. Basically an absolute non-threat to even the worst adventurer in existence in 4E. I do not need it in a monster manual to quickly derive something like that in the absolute scenario that I need it (which I can imagine would be never).

Some creatures I would always like stats for though, ordinary bears, wolves (already in 4E though), sharks and similar large predatory animals deserve and warrant stats. I don't need combat stats for mice (unless it's maybe a swarm of them?), cats and similar things though.

When something doesn't need to be fought (or alternatively, really can't be) there isn't any point to giving it combat stats. When I buy a MM, I want things that are usable in encounters and are mechanically interesting. When I want something that I have no intention of making a relevant combat encounter, I'm not going to bother or even want to give it stats. I'll balance it around it being a non-combat challenge, which means that hitting it should be the part where you've failed that.

Should they perhaps expand on this elsewhere or in other books or similar? I suppose they can add such creatures and I would certainly be interested in how they were implemented. I wouldn't want these things taking space in the MM though.

YMMV of course but I use to read the MM as a kid because it inspired my imagination... not because I wanted to go over stat blocks.

Fluff is one thing, but fluff without mechanics is terrible and mechanics without fluff - well that's an arguable point. Let me bring up the Tarrasque for a moment. I've always loved the concept of the monster, it's fluff and its potential but every time I've looked at it I've passed it over. Why? Because the mechanics in no edition of DnD matches its awesome fluff. It's always a worthless sack of HP waiting to be killed by various spellcasters (2E and 3E), or just whacked into oblivion in general due to its hilariously bad action economy and stat block (4E). To add insult to injury, it's frankly boring to fight. It's mechanics have never been fun or interesting in the least. So all that interesting fluff and flavor is absolutely worthless to me, because the creatures mechanics are so bad I wouldn't want to use it unless I make something myself. If I wanted to just make something myself, that's precisely what I would have done in the first place and I don't need a MM to tell me about fluff of a world ending monster. I need the MM to give me a compelling mechanically sound creature and enough fluff to tell me what it does.

So I actually have even higher standards. I want decent fluff that gives me a solid idea "What the hell does this creature do" and then I want solid fun game mechanics. I want to use Lolth from MM3. I want to use Allabah from MM3. I want to use the weird water primordial from Plane Below (forget the name sorry, but she's awesome). I want to use Tiamat (Draconomicon). I want to use Turglas (Dungeon) These are monsters with an excellent core piece of fluff that tells me what they do easily and is backed up by a rock solid fun looking stat block.

I don't want to use the Tarrasque (crap), I don't want to use black dragons from the original MM (boring), I don't want to use the original Orcus and so forth. They have good fluff attached to them, but their mechanics are just too poor to be viable without needing to make major modifications. I will give you that Orcus from E3 is a lot better than his MM counterpart by a long shot, but the original Orcus was just not a great or worthwhile stat block. All that fluff and I will never bother with it if the monster it tries to support isn't worth using in my game. A monster with mechanics and no fluff is still usable, not everything requires interaction outside of combat, where I basically vigorously disagree with Shemeska especially. Having good fluff is merely something that actually helps and makes a monster superior - but not unusable like a terrible stat block does.

If I'm preparing an adventure I look around at monsters I pick:

Good fluff + excellent mechanics
Okay Fluff + Excellent mechanics
Excellent Mechanics
Good fluff + Okay mechanics
Okay mechanics

Because in the end I need monsters for a distinct purpose and that's generally for combat (for most creatures). I don't need hours of lore on giant centipedes to be able to figure out a giant centipede is a large angry creature that bites people. I just need a mechanical stat block that makes a giant centipede fun to fight. I have youtube and can watch any number of nature documentaries, because no fluff will actually match how creepy the things are in real life to begin with. If I'm making the BBEG of my campaign, I'm going to pick exclusively on who has the best fluff AND mechanics. Fluff makes the villain compelling and your PCs want to fight him. Mechanics make that fight actually fun and climatic as it should be.

That's what I want from a MM now. A decent fluffy idea or use for a creature, combined with a rock solid interesting stat block. Even if I won't use it, mechanics that are interesting inspire my own new mechanics for my own monsters (or show me ideas as to what is acceptable). Things that I don't need to make new fluff OR mechanics for are the best monsters in the game though.

 

[Stormonu]

I'll always take a critter that can be interacted with in some significant space over filler any day. For example, I'd rather have stats on a Shadow wolf than your typical squirrel. At the same time, there is time and a place for including critters that aren't always going to end in a fight, or having something to fall back on for unusual but interesting encounters.

For example, the characters may have a gold dragon benefactor. The party isn't likely to get into a fight with their benefactor, but it would be helpful to know in some way what the gold dragon's limitations and abilities are for how much aid he can render to the party, including pulling the character's fat out of the fire or should the BBEG send forces to deal with the PCs and their benefactor at their home ("Err, whoops heroes - we weren't informed the old bald sage was really a gold dragon...")

Or, for example, it turned out that those nuts squirrels hoarded away were acorn bombs and the squirrel started chucking them at adventurers as they passed by, I'd sure like to have some sort of stats to use for the coming mayhem.

 

[Aegeri]

Actually there are squirrels in 4E that do that. They were in an april fools article, but they are there and they are all so adorable with their little bows and such.

 

[Wolf1066]

I definitely like the idea of a master book of things - including non-living things and forces of nature - regardless of whether they can be fought or not or whether or not they pose a real threat to characters.

I think that anything that can be killed/destroyed - such as the singing mushrooms or Umbran's giant stone face - should have stats for that eventuality as you can never predict what the characters/players are going to do ("awwww, that's so prettyyyyyyy... Let's smash it!") regardless of whether or not the players are "meant to" fight them but things that cannot be fought (wind, sandstorms, etc) would not. Likewise, things that can do damage or engage in combat would have those stats regardless of whether or not they have stats for receiving damage.

Basically a master list of things - monsters, interesting critters, forces of nature, deities etc - with select stats based on what interactions are remotely possible. Even if it would take an insane amount of damage to kill/destroy it, that should be listed (in case the players work out some way of convincing/fooling something capable of inflicting insane amounts of damage to do it for them).

Having things divided between a large number of books based on arbitrary "divisions" - such as "can't fight back" or "likely to attack party"/"likely to be attacked by party" is needlessly inefficient.

One of the things I really like is the "CP2020 Reference Book" which gives basics of pretty much everything from all existing CP2020 core/source/expansion books and Interface magazines (with citations pointing back to the original book/magazine that contains the full details/description should you need them) all in one place. If it were expanded out to include the full content and divided into different books based on major category (rule sets, skills, cyberware, encounters etc) it would be brilliant. Want a particular animal? Instead of leafing through magazines and various Chromebooks looking for it (you saw it in here, somewhere), open the master book that has all the animals in it.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Call it "filler", call it "fluff", call it "discovery channel writeup"...

...I call it motivation, lore, mystery, culture, habitat, and just plain old "background" that places the creatures within a world and not just within a dungeon/adventure/the end of a sword.



Why does it need stats? Because when I play a video game, I like being able to click on anything, not just the "set pieces" I am "railroaded" into interacting with.


I somewhat apologize for the use of the word "railroaded". It was intentional, to make a point. I mean to point out that calling monster ecology "filler" denigrates/labels it pretty heavily as useless. But to claim only things that the DM/designers DECIDE are there to be in combat are the things that CAN or SHOULD be in combat, sorta does sound a bit...limiting.

Why do campestri need stats? Because campestri "exist". They exist within the fantasy world. Could they exist with fewer stats? Sure. I like KM's premise. While their stats are not LIKELY to come into play, they still might. This is a bit of a slippery slope argument. Why not elminate an ogre's stealth rating? It's not like it will hide. What about an illithid's knowledge ratings? Just assume they know whatever is relevant to the story, after all, they're geniuses.

This is, in the end, a question about "how much". People may put labels on "filler" or "fluff" but there is not really a clear line where fluff ends and cruch begins.

 

[Shemeska]

In monster books I've worked on there's been a tendency for goals like that to fall flat. For instance, if a Monster Manual format requires a society section in every creature entry, you end up with a lot of unnecessary writing.

Then it's a good thing that I didn't suggest that my ideal of providing MM critters with more depth and detail require a specific format for or any limits on what information to provide. Different creatures will work better with various sorts of elaborated details.

It would have been real nice to see something like you briefly mentioned wrt details utilized for the 4e MM rather than a purely stat-centric or combat design focus that was sort of blanket imposed there, versus anything else less absolute as you say. The paucity of flavor text was one of the major things that didn't work for my group.

 

[Wolf1066]

Different creatures will work better with various sorts of elaborated details.

Perzackerly.
If it can't be fought/destroyed, there's no point including stats for that; if it doesn't have even a basic social heirarchy there's likewise no point having that section for that critter/thing.

However, things that can be destroyed need stats for it and things that have social structures or special abilities or social taboos or whatever need to have them listed.

So this means that the amount of information varies and that there can be no single "template" that will suit everything - big deal. And I don't even see the point in having the "slot" for said info (i.e. "Taboos: None" "THAC0: NA" or whatever) just plain omit whatever's not relevant, include what is.

Anyone who wonders why a sandstorm has stats for the damage it can do but no information on how to kill it (or what its social/economical status is) probably shouldn't be playing RPGs anyway...

 

[Imaro]

Fluff is one thing, but fluff without mechanics is terrible and mechanics without fluff - well that's an arguable point. Let me bring up the Tarrasque for a moment. I've always loved the concept of the monster, it's fluff and its potential but every time I've looked at it I've passed it over. Why? Because the mechanics in no edition of DnD matches its awesome fluff. It's always a worthless sack of HP waiting to be killed by various spellcasters (2E and 3E), or just whacked into oblivion in general due to its hilariously bad action economy and stat block (4E). To add insult to injury, it's frankly boring to fight. It's mechanics have never been fun or interesting in the least. So all that interesting fluff and flavor is absolutely worthless to me, because the creatures mechanics are so bad I wouldn't want to use it unless I make something myself. If I wanted to just make something myself, that's precisely what I would have done in the first place and I don't need a MM to tell me about fluff of a world ending monster. I need the MM to give me a compelling mechanically sound creature and enough fluff to tell me what it does.

So I actually have even higher standards. I want decent fluff that gives me a solid idea "What the hell does this creature do" and then I want solid fun game mechanics. I want to use Lolth from MM3. I want to use Allabah from MM3. I want to use the weird water primordial from Plane Below (forget the name sorry, but she's awesome). I want to use Tiamat (Draconomicon). I want to use Turglas (Dungeon) These are monsters with an excellent core piece of fluff that tells me what they do easily and is backed up by a rock solid fun looking stat block.

I don't want to use the Tarrasque (crap), I don't want to use black dragons from the original MM (boring), I don't want to use the original Orcus and so forth. They have good fluff attached to them, but their mechanics are just too poor to be viable without needing to make major modifications. I will give you that Orcus from E3 is a lot better than his MM counterpart by a long shot, but the original Orcus was just not a great or worthwhile stat block. All that fluff and I will never bother with it if the monster it tries to support isn't worth using in my game. A monster with mechanics and no fluff is still usable, not everything requires interaction outside of combat, where I basically vigorously disagree with Shemeska especially. Having good fluff is merely something that actually helps and makes a monster superior - but not unusable like a terrible stat block does.

If I'm preparing an adventure I look around at monsters I pick:

Good fluff + excellent mechanics
Okay Fluff + Excellent mechanics
Excellent Mechanics
Good fluff + Okay mechanics
Okay mechanics

Because in the end I need monsters for a distinct purpose and that's generally for combat (for most creatures). I don't need hours of lore on giant centipedes to be able to figure out a giant centipede is a large angry creature that bites people. I just need a mechanical stat block that makes a giant centipede fun to fight. I have youtube and can watch any number of nature documentaries, because no fluff will actually match how creepy the things are in real life to begin with. If I'm making the BBEG of my campaign, I'm going to pick exclusively on who has the best fluff AND mechanics. Fluff makes the villain compelling and your PCs want to fight him. Mechanics make that fight actually fun and climatic as it should be.

That's what I want from a MM now. A decent fluffy idea or use for a creature, combined with a rock solid interesting stat block. Even if I won't use it, mechanics that are interesting inspire my own new mechanics for my own monsters (or show me ideas as to what is acceptable). Things that I don't need to make new fluff OR mechanics for are the best monsters in the game though.

First, let me say... it really doesn't have to be an either or question. Making good mechanics, in no way means the mythology of the creature has to suffer, just like creating a rich mythology for the creature doesn't in turn mandate you must have sub-par mechanics. I think, and this is my personal opinion, that the Monsternomicon for Iron Kingdoms is a pretty good example of both being done well.


Now to answer the question of why I feel the mythology or story behind a creature is just as important as the mechanics...

I think you, probably think stats are more important because you've been playing the game for awhile. You know more/most/all of the mythology of D&D and yes, I am assuming you've played at least two or more editions since you comment on both 3e and 4e in your tarrasque example.

However as a kid who is new to the game, looking through the MM for the first time, I probably won't know what those stats mean in the overall context of the game especially since I probably don't have a full grasp of the mechanicas yet. It will be first... the art that will draw me in. Once I am interested in the creature, then it will be the mythology/story/background of this creature... if it's boring or non-existent... even too sparse, I wouldn't note or remember that as a creature I'm even interested in putting in my game. Finally I would start to look at the stats as I get ready to run this creature. At least that was my basic experience as a child, playing D&D for the first time.

 

[mearls]

It would have been real nice to see something like you briefly mentioned wrt details utilized for the 4e MM rather than a purely stat-centric or combat design focus that was sort of blanket imposed there, versus anything else less absolute as you say. The paucity of flavor text was one of the major things that didn't work for my group.

MM 3 is a much better representation of how I'd like to do things.

It's not a D&D book, but the BattleTech Technical Readout: 3025 is a great example of a sourcebook that goes beyond providing mere stats. Each 'mech gets a stat block and a full page of history.

That history did a lot to fill in the BattleTech setting while also providing a lot of flavor hooks. You get tidbits like the Blackjack's reputation for flawed armor, the Clint's superb targeting system, or the Banshee's place as a second line unit because of its popgun weaponry. I think it provides a model that I'd like to see D&D monster books hit in the future. The background itself is compelling enough to stick with you.

 

[mearls]

Call it "filler", call it "fluff", call it "discovery channel writeup"...

I HATE the word fluff. It's terribly dismissive of the very material that hooked a lot of people into gaming in the first place.

Motivation, lore, mystery, you're 100% right that that's a much better way to think of it.