Monster Manuals: Things You Don't Kill

[Aberzanzorax]

I agree with much of what you've stated Aegeri. In fact, we might be arguing the same points in some cases, but from different perspectives. I'll try and highlight the points on which we don't agree.

A non-compelling monster can be saved by mechanics. A compelling fluffy monster can be absolutely ruined by terrible mechanics.

A non-compelling monster cannot be saved by good mechanics, IMO. It can be saved by a good DM giving it a good compelling description (fluff), motivation (fluff), and personality/way of acting with the pcs (fluff). On the other hand, a monster that is not particularly interesting (e.g. a standard goblin) can become VERY interesting with good fluff. In a game I ran, I had goblins crawl out of shadows, be swathed in black, their hands dripping with some oily black tarlike substance. They had a very specific story/background, but the description made this a compelling encounter for the players, not the 1d4 ranged attacks with fishing spears.

On the flip side, so too can a monster with "tight" mechanics be ruined by horrible fluff.

But again, no amount of fluff would save an illithid if it isn't any fun as a monster to use*.

I agree with you strongly that illithids and the like are more deserving of fluff than something "real" I could look up in an encyclopedia. I also agree that if the illithid is un-fun to use that's a veto. But un-fun for story is also a veto.

What point does HP, defenses and similar have against something that can't defend itself?

and

Why does not having stats make something into a thing you can't interact with? This is rather nonsensical argument.

Because sometimes you need to interact with those stats. This is the reason we have rules at all.

Take the campestri. Imagine a party has met them before and the campestri are friendly (very helpful in their way) to the party but are very excitable and burst into song whenever the party sees them. The party is trying to sneak attack some bandits and there are campestri just next to the bandit camp.

What is the campestri perception/spot check?

If players make themselves known to them, what is their intuition/intelligence/sense motive/wisdom to understand they should remain quiet and be able to act upon that?

The players want to use an area poison attack. Will they kill their little allies, or are they immune to poison (since they're fungus dudes)?

The campestri want to help. They agree to sneak into the camp when the bandits are sleeping. What is their move silently/stealth?

The campestri want to steal the bandits weapons and gear that is laying around the campsite. What is their strength/carrying capacity?

The bandits discover them. Sure they're easy to kill...but there are a bunch of them. Is it a swarm? Do they just die? The bandits use daggers. Is this an effective method of solving the challenge?

There is a lone campestri villian. He knows about the pcs and wants to rat them out to the bandits. He heads for the camp, but he's pretty far away when this is discovered. Since he's mushroom sized and at a distance of 50 feet, what's the likelihood the players can kill him with a bow and arrow?



Any one of these questions could be potentially solved via DM fiat/ad hoc rulings. However, the questions add up.

Although the word fluff may be dismissive, I like to think that it's only being equally dismissive as those who think mechanics are irrelevant to a monster are being. Making a monsters background and ecology is one thing, making that a compelling creature that makes an exciting battle is the real challenge to me

I don't think anyone is arguing for monsters to not have stats here. I think people are arguing for things that "don't need stats" to be included. I personally am arguing that any intelligent life form probably would benefit from stats...even if its purpose isn't for the players to kill it.


In the end, at least the way my group and I game, exciting battles usually come from the players being invested in destroying the great evil. Neat tricks are fun and keep battles interesting, but battles that advance the story and keep players' imaginations and emotions running on overdrive seem to be the most exciting for my group.

 

[Hussar]

There's also the fact that, despite what the GM might intend, players do... pretty much what they want, including fighting things that aren't there to be a major combat menace.

Not having stats means the game's purpose for them is predetermined, and the GM has an issue if the players step away from that purpose. Having stats means you can use the stats, or not, as you need.

I disagree.

Not having stats means if you attack it, it dies. You don't bother rolling, you don't ponce about. It just dies. If I attack a house cat with my sword, I don't need initiative, I don't need anything. It just dies. Same with a regular bat. I wave my hand at it, and it flies away. End of encounter.

So, no, not having stats does not pre-determine something's use. It just means that I don't have to spend twenty minutes die rolling to kill house cats.

 

[Stormonu]

So, no, not having stats does not pre-determine something's use. It just means that I don't have to spend twenty minutes die rolling to kill house cats.

Which is fine, until you want to run an encounter with Poe's Black Cat. But then, it's no longer an ordinary housecat - but if the stats exist, you will have a place to start from.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Loves me that Battletech.

But, there's a bit of an issue here. How much setting do you want in the core books? Battletech didn't have this problem, because everything in BTech was presumed to be occuring in the same universe. It wasn't a generic game at all. So, you could include all that information.

D&D is a far more settingless system. Telling me that goblins are enslaved by hobgoblins and can be bribed just clouds the issue. That's great if I'm running the Presumed D&D Setting, but if I'm running a homebrew, this is just going to confuse my players.

Every time you add in this sort of flavor to the Monster Manual (and related books) it becomes canon. Which just means more work for those who don't want to follow the D&D canon.

One thing I've absolutely loved about 4e is its lack of canon. I adore the fact that the monsters have so little flavour. I can add flavour. There's a bajillion sources of inspiration for flavour out there. Every time they add flavour to descriptions, the more that flavour has to jive with what came before, and we wind right back up where we were at the end of 3e - thousands of pages of flavor, much of it contradictory, and everyone screaming and hollering any time a change came to their favourite bit.

 

[Aegeri]

I agree with much of what you've stated Aegeri. In fact, we might be arguing the same points in some cases, but from different perspectives. I'll try and highlight the points on which we don't agree.

That is probably more than true.

A non-compelling monster cannot be saved by good mechanics, IMO.

Yes it can, because I can take those mechanics and make that monster into anything else I want. For example a humanoid creature can be just made an Orc chieftain or something else. Depending on what its powers and similar is. Fluff can be much harder to transfer from creature to creature, plus is often not required anyway.

I already take a monster with X mechanics, call it something else and call it a day. Very often this works brilliantly for a wide variety of monsters and makes generating creatures for an encounter very easy.

Additionally, a monsters fluff is irrelevant often to what it does in combat. A fire creature doesn't need exceptional explanation as to why its in a volcano. An evil humanoid doesn't need exceptional explanation as to why it is under the thrall of an illithid. Fluff is more likely to be invisible or irrelevant to a PCs interactions with a single monster than its actual mechanics. The illithids who are the villains of the campaign are a different story of course, but the random humanoid monster that they have as a thrall is probably not going to need much fluff justifying him.

It is easy to put a monster into an encounter despite its fluff.

It can be saved by a good DM giving it a good compelling description (fluff), motivation (fluff), and personality/way of acting with the pcs (fluff).

Alternatively, it's just there as a logical part of the encounter and has no further interaction at all. Requiring absolutely zero fluff.

On the other hand, a monster that is not particularly interesting (e.g. a standard goblin) can become VERY interesting with good fluff.

I find when a creatures mechanics are incapable of backing up its fluff PCs are either underwhelmed or wonder what all the fuss is about. I'm very careful now that if I describe something as an almighty badass to be feared and give it say, black oily tar its mechanics actually back up that fluff. Mechanics can support fluff, but fluff doesn't inherently support mechanics.

On the flip side, so too can a monster with "tight" mechanics be ruined by horrible fluff.

I actually disagree here. If the monster is in an encounter and there isn't some unusual reason that would ping it for not being there, such as an aberration in the middle of paladins of Bahamut or something strange - how it acts in combat establishes how a monster is to the PCs.

For example the Dracolich is a creature with awesome fluff. The mechanics of the monster are beyond terrible. It's arguably one of the worst monsters in all of 4th edition. It's not fun, it relies on constant stun locking to make up for its terrible action economy and nobody is going to have fun fighting it. Even with all the lore and fluff on Dracoliches I gave PCs (I really built the encounter up) the mechanics were so bad it just made all that utterly irrelevant.

Now another creature I put into the campaign, which had NO fluff whatsoever before it and no built up is still my finest hour as a DM. It was a zany book golem, that threw books at the PCs, could generate random magical effects at whim, was difficult to just stun lock or daze (or anything else). It was such a mechanically whacky monster but had absolutely no fluff - I made it up out of thin air for that encounter. My PCs absolutely loved it! It was fantastic fun, it was well balanced, it challenged the party and its mechanics were very original compared to other monsters I'd used. In addition it didn't rely on cheaply (and boringly) stunning, dazing or whatever all the PCs constantly.

I mean, one of these things is an iconic creature in dungeons and dragons with piles of fluff and lore to draw on. The other is a creature I spent roughly 2 afternoons designing the mechanics of without a single drop of lore or fluff. One was a massive disappointment and the other is the model I've used for every single solo battle in 4E afterwards.

If "no fluff" is the equivalent of horrible, what exactly was ruined with using a creature that had no particular fluff at all (except being basically a golem really). The encounter logically justified and supported the creatures existence. That's what truly matters. If I had made tons of lore about its creation, where it came from and such then the PCs fought it: If the mechanics were bad do you think they would say "That was the most fun solo we ever fought in 4E" afterwards?

I agree with you strongly that illithids and the like are more deserving of fluff than something "real" I could look up in an encyclopedia. I also agree that if the illithid is un-fun to use that's a veto. But un-fun for story is also a veto.

Why? A creature doesn't have to interact with the story at all. A giant centipede is a giant centipede. A chuul is a chuul. These things really aren't there to deepen and make your story more compelling, they are obstacles or creatures that are just there. An Illithid? I agree. Dragons? I agree. But every monster? Now you're overreaching your argument massively.

Because sometimes you need to interact with those stats. This is the reason we have rules at all.

This is the reason we have DCs by level and such. In simple terms, we already have rules for this.

What is the campestri perception/spot check?

If they are particularly excitable, medium to hard DC by encounter level.

If they aren't or are known to be a bit lazy, sleepy or whatever then easy DC by encounter level.

If players make themselves known to them, what is their intuition/intelligence/sense motive/wisdom to understand they should remain quiet and be able to act upon that?

If they are known to be obnoxious, medium to hard DC by encounter level.

If they are likely to understand there could be a fight if they do anything, easy DC by encounter level (or easily bribed with candy or whatever they want).

Noting again, these are simply derivations from whatever fluff I'm using for these monsters - it allows me to quickly and easily adjudicate anything I need to know to run them in this manner. Stats in a MM I don't need, ironically the fluff I would say so but if I'm the DM, I'm making this then I either have the fluff or am making it. So I don't see why my decisions on this need to be published in a MM if I'm the one making this dilemma for myself.

The players want to use an area poison attack. Will they kill their little allies, or are they immune to poison (since they're fungus dudes)?

Doesn't really matter in the long run, I would make them minions and have the PCs explode them. The PCs can bear the consequences of that in the combat or whatever else. Their defenses can simply be set by DC in the book, or just make them skirmishers (roughly the default monster type). Plants aren't automatically immune to poison either, so there isn't a particular reason that they should have it (EG Myconids are not immune to poison).

I am failing why I need this in a MM when I can adjudicate all this using the DCs by level presented in the DMG.

The campestri want to help. They agree to sneak into the camp when the bandits are sleeping. What is their move silently/stealth?

I would simply make it a reward to the PCs for convincing them in the first place, meaning they automatically succeed and making this irrelevant. Playing chess against myself is incredibly boring, it's far more interesting adjudicating how the PCs interact with them. If they convinced them to do that, I would allow the PCs the satisfaction of having come up with a non-violent solution and even directly skip a potential encounter with the bandits.

They are small fungus people, what's to say the Bandits if they are familiar with them pay them any attention even if they do see them?

The campestri want to steal the bandits weapons and gear that is laying around the campsite. What is their strength/carrying capacity?

Does it particularly matter? No creatures in 4E tell you that specifically anyway and it's not really that relevant to me. If I had to adjudicate it I'd rule it similar to a creature picking up something small ala around what mage hand can grab.

The bandits discover them. Sure they're easy to kill...but there are a bunch of them. Is it a swarm? Do they just die? The bandits use daggers. Is this an effective method of solving the challenge?

The bandits can just boot them or stab them or whatever. The poor little critters have to escape or be slaughtered, alternatively the PCs can jump in and save the day, distracting the bandits from their fungicidal madness.

You're going to find in discussions with me incidentally, that I don't care how monsters interact beyond it being logical. I don't play DnD to play chess against myself (it's terribly boring I can tell you that). If my PCs don't step in the poor creatures are killed, there is no requirement to work out how the bandits dispatch them. If my PCs interact the bandits cease killing the fungus people for the mage who is trying to cook them alive in their armour (priorities are important).

If they need stats I can default to my knowledge of monsters (which is standardized in 4E) and just give them a skirmisher defense array + level, then make them minions. Done, just like that and I'm back to focusing on how my PCs choose to deal with the situation: Not chess against myself.

Not all monsters need stats. If I make a situation where I need to know something, I can easily and trivially make it. Especially because their actual interaction is more or less "What do I need to roll to make them die" rather than anything else. That's not a significant amount of work on my part IMO, not like making an entirely new monster from scratch.

There is a lone campestri villian. He knows about the pcs and wants to rat them out to the bandits. He heads for the camp, but he's pretty far away when this is discovered. Since he's mushroom sized and at a distance of 50 feet, what's the likelihood the players can kill him with a bow and arrow?

This doesn't sound very plausible to be honest, but if the little guy wants to be malicious but isn't a particular threat and he's discovered, he's doomed. The PC needs to hit an even level skirmishers AC and given I would make him a minion, that's his goose cooked.

But then I would likely make that a skill challenge, with him darting in and out of holes in the ground. I can imagine the comedy of the PCs have to run from hole to hole trying to whack this sinister mushroom trying to alert the bandits. None of this requires his actual combat stats though - I can set DCs by level for the skill challenge from the DMG.

Any one of these questions could be potentially solved via DM fiat/ad hoc rulings. However, the questions add up.

And 90% of them are simply solved by using two tables in the DMG and some common sense IMO

In the end, at least the way my group and I game, exciting battles usually come from the players being invested in destroying the great evil.

I absolutely agree, but as my dracolich vs. random book golem shows, great lore and being invested in somethings destruction doesn't always make for the best and most memorable battle. If fighting it sucked nobody cares about your lore, they just remember the fact it died hilariously in 3 rounds without bloodying or damaging most of the party - or worse - they remember the TPK they suffered with no chance to do anything. PCs are fickle like that from my experience. The best monsters of course have great lore AND solid mechanics. But solid mechanics are solid mechanics and in a game that's paramount (IMO).

 

[pawsplay]

How much setting do you want in the core books?

Tons. And then setting writers can change it all in setting books and clap themselves on the back. This has worked for literally decades. Why mess with a winning formula? I mean, seriously, what is the point of even having orcs if you can't say with some certainty that they have a tendency to maraud? Might as well call them Bipdel Humanoid Marauders.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, there's a bit of an issue here. How much setting do you want in the core books?

Personally, I don't see much of a problem here. I did when 4e was first coming out, but my understanding has changed a bit.

At least for new DMs, and partially for brand purposes, and likely to give us the best flavor, the D&D default setting has to be the D&D default setting. Be it Greyhawk or "Greyhawk with the serial numbers filed off" or "PoL-land," it's an implied setting. You can't have evocative flavor and solid archetypes without it.

Now, that's not to say that D&D can't be used as a toolkit. Indeed, it should be designed with at least an eye toward the tinkerers that grow the hobby like none other. But that is to say that DMs who are likely to use D&D as a toolkit are likely to be changing stuff all the time anyway. Putting in new flavor shouldn't be too tough, since they're not assuming the core setting.

But, that core setting needs to be there, at least for the newbie DMs who aren't going to be creating a world. You need an example. That's what the Nentir Vale is in 4e. Given the setting information that's come out to this point, what with the Dawn War and the Primordials and Tharizdun and whatnot, there's actually a whole bag of setting information in the books. That's what Greyhawk was in 3e and 1e (and earlier).

So giving us a broad brush-stroked worlds is essential.

This is the reason we have DCs by level and such. In simple terms, we already have rules for this.

Here's my main issue with that stance:

You don't need an MM by that logic, either, since there are rules for creating monster stat blocks.

So why aren't traps, hazards, social challenges, potential allies, mythic quests, threatening behemoths, natural disasters, pernicious politics, diabolical manipulators, and searches for lost artefacts as worthy of additional page space as the swordwing? As bear lore?

The answer, as far as I can see, is historical accident coupled with habit. The MM was modeled, in classic Gygaxian style, after medieval bestiaries. This means creatures. So it has been, and so it will be, because it has been thus.

But it chafes at that constraint. The Ear Seeker or the Rust Monster aren't really monsters. In game terms, they're more like traps. The Terrasque isn't really a monster. In 4e game terms, it's more like a bag of 3-4 different skill challenges. Dire bears aren't monsters, they're lackeys of monsters. Angels aren't monsters. They're more likely to be allies, companions, and benefactors.

We do need rules for that. Mechanical, interesting, varied, even slightly complex rules. That is, rules with unique player resources and meaningful choices and significant variety. Page 42 and Skill Challenges don't meet that need. A book that took seriously the idea that enduring a hurricane or securing an angel's allegiance was worth the same amount of attention as fighting a gnoll would have to address that need. That's a need I desperately need met in my 4e games.

I don't think I'm alone. I think part of what underlies some of the demands for "more fluff in the MM!" and "more story and better pacing in the adventures!" is an audience who would like just as much to trick a Fey Lord as to slay an ogre. And I haven't heard a convincing reason as to why the latter is more important to provide engaging, ongoing support for than the former.

 

[mearls]

Every time you add in this sort of flavor to the Monster Manual (and related books) it becomes canon. Which just means more work for those who don't want to follow the D&D canon.

Kind of. On one hand, you can easily have the situation you describe. On the other, the "canonical" descriptions from core 2e were one of the things that helped make Darksun so interesting. If you accept that halflings are pastoral Shire-folk, then recasting them as cannibalistic fiends makes them more interesting.

For one of the books I'm currently working on, I tried to define to the freelancers the difference between useful detail and pointless detail. It comes down to this:

Good detail exists on its own. It ends at the edge of whatever it describes. It doesn't rely on anything outside of it unless it absolutely must. If you look at the arcanian or chitine entries from MM 3, they show off that concept fairly well.

For instance, the arcanians have bizarre, warped motivations based on the magic that killed and reanimated them. Those motivations don't rely on any outside flavor, like gods, geography, or history. I think they help make arcanians interesting and flavorful (though I'm biased!) but it doesn't cement them into a larger picture. It leaves that up to the DM.

From the chitine entry, there's a mention of a shifter that tricked a chitine tribe into believing that she was an aspect of Lolth. Aside from the deity mention, that story doesn't establish any real history. It simply illustrates that the chitines have a combination of religious fanaticism and naivete that characters can exploit.

Again, the chitines are fleshed out, but they aren't too heavily lodged into a specific history. They have ties to the drow and Lolth, but that's changed easily enough.

Ideally, a monster or other game element that's intended to work on its own tells its own story. It doesn't lean so heavily on other elements that it's nonsensical without them.

 

[Hussar]

Which is fine, until you want to run an encounter with Poe's Black Cat. But then, it's no longer an ordinary housecat - but if the stats exist, you will have a place to start from.

But, then, if it's no longer an ordinary house cat, why should I start from there?

I mean, why not respec pretty much any monster and call it Poe's Black Cat? Why do I have to be forced to start with Cat, Common, House?

Tons. And then setting writers can change it all in setting books and clap themselves on the back. This has worked for literally decades. Why mess with a winning formula? I mean, seriously, what is the point of even having orcs if you can't say with some certainty that they have a tendency to maraud? Might as well call them Bipdel Humanoid Marauders.

What winning formula. The Mind Flayer, probably one of the most iconic D&D monsters, has this entry in the 1e Monster Manual:

That's it. Two paragraphs, at best, of non-combat goodies. It speaks funny languages, and it's slimy. Oh, and it treats everyone like cattle and it runs away. Fantastic. That's more than enough to hook around. Do I really need that much more?

Kind of. On one hand, you can easily have the situation you describe. On the other, the "canonical" descriptions from core 2e were one of the things that helped make Darksun so interesting. If you accept that halflings are pastoral Shire-folk, then recasting them as cannibalistic fiends makes them more interesting.

Totally agree. Setting books are a whole 'nother beast. If I'm getting a setting book, I want lots of setting.

For one of the books I'm currently working on, I tried to define to the freelancers the difference between useful detail and pointless detail. It comes down to this:

Good detail exists on its own. It ends at the edge of whatever it describes. It doesn't rely on anything outside of it unless it absolutely must. If you look at the arcanian or chitine entries from MM 3, they show off that concept fairly well.

For instance, the arcanians have bizarre, warped motivations based on the magic that killed and reanimated them. Those motivations don't rely on any outside flavor, like gods, geography, or history. I think they help make arcanians interesting and flavorful (though I'm biased!) but it doesn't cement them into a larger picture. It leaves that up to the DM.

From the chitine entry, there's a mention of a shifter that tricked a chitine tribe into believing that she was an aspect of Lolth. Aside from the deity mention, that story doesn't establish any real history. It simply illustrates that the chitines have a combination of religious fanaticism and naivete that characters can exploit.

Again, the chitines are fleshed out, but they aren't too heavily lodged into a specific history. They have ties to the drow and Lolth, but that's changed easily enough.

Ideally, a monster or other game element that's intended to work on its own tells its own story. It doesn't lean so heavily on other elements that it's nonsensical without them.

Fair enough. Having not seen the book, I cannot make any specific comment. I have no problems with flavour. But, OTOH, a Technical Readout style Monster manual, while maybe a blast to read, would not be to my taste either.

 

[pawsplay]

What winning formula. The Mind Flayer, probably one of the most iconic D&D monsters, has this entry in the 1e Monster Manual:

That's it. Two paragraphs, at best, of non-combat goodies. It speaks funny languages, and it's slimy. Oh, and it treats everyone like cattle and it runs away. Fantastic. That's more than enough to hook around. Do I really need that much more?

Just from that entry, we know:

- There are humans in the game world and mind flayers live in some proximity to them.
- There is a vast subterranean world full of "terrible races" who speak weird languages.
- The mind flayers probably have an underground city.