4e Has Less Raw Content: Fact!

[Khuxan]

I have to disagree. Half the monsters in every 3e MM being below level 5 was a huge problem if you ever wanted to play at level 8+. Especially when you hit level 13+, there were only maybe 5-8 monsters of each level, and 3e was a system where you had 10-13 encounter per level.

In 4e, you can easily hit level 25+ and have a new monster in every combat encounter. That's more how I like my Monster Manuals to be.

I see your point, but by the time my players reached 8th or 9th level, I would have the MM II or a 3rd-party monster book. I would have preferred the MM I to focus on the hieroic tier, MM II on the paragon tier, and MM III on the epic tier, with each MM having some monsters for the other tier.

 

[Fenes]

When it comes to FR, I most definitely agree with the OP. It's so light on content that I'm finding it pretty much useless as a campaign setting, or even as a source of ideas to steal. The characters, cultures, history and depth that made FR compelling in the past are gone, sacrificed in the name of a bigger font and more white space.

Exactly. For actually running a game with more details than some fluff for dungeon crawls, for running a game that deals with social interaction, cultures, politics and cities, the 4E FRCS fails completely.

Not that the 3E books were perfect - for details on cultures I often have to make it up myself, or use 2E books. Usually a mixture of both,

 

[AllisterH]

re: Playing versus running

I'm actually involved in a Pathfinder playtest and I'm having lots of fun playing the characters. No issue there and I still enjoy pre-teen level 3.x as well.

The problem is that in my group, I was the DM since by the time 3.5 came out, nobody else felt comfortable DMing due to either the in-game DMing or the prep work required.

Like many others, I love DMing 4E and I'm not interested in DMing 3.x. As an asise, this unfortunately is what might determine Pathfinder's success in my group as the Pathfinder DM is finding it too excessive (Options are GREAT for players, somewhat of a pain for the DM)


re: 4E DMG
Really good DMG. I think with 4E, I might actually get out from behind the screen since a couple of my players thought after reading the DMG they could actually try DMing To say I was stunned was an understatement since one of them always used to say that DMing was too difficult for him.


re: MM monsters.

It's actually hard to tell how many low level monsters there are when comparing.

For example, open the 4E MM to the kobold entry and contrast this with say the 2E MM entry for the kobold AND goblin.

There's WAY more mechanical difference between the kobold types in the 4E MM than across the two separate entries in the earlier version.

However, the latter is considered two entries whereas the former is only 1 entry....

 

[ExploderWizard]

I just meant that almost every combat will have at least one new monster. Sometimes that new monster will probably be teamed up with stuff you've fought before, and sometimes you'll fight all new monsters, but rarely will every monster in the combat be a repeat. I think the WoTC adventures have gone along with this fairly well.

In my last 3e campaign, which went from 1-20th level, one of my biggest complaints as a DM was that none of the MMs supported high-level play very well. High-level monsters were scarce, and the ones that were present were inconsistent in their power levels. The 4e Monster Manual solves this problem, so I consider it a better book in that regard.

When you say "new monster" are you talking about an actual new monster or the same monster with different abilities tacked on?
Goblin warrior
Goblin killer
Goblin caster
Goblin skirmisher
Goblin fancypants
Goblin buttkicker
Goblin lookIcandothis

To me this list contains a single monster, the goblin, along with a collection of random abilities that I could slap on any humanoid that would make just as much sense. How many monsters do we have now?

 

[Rel]

I don't actually own the 4e MM yet but I'm going to go buy it immediately in order to see the statblock for the Goblin fancypants.

 

[Henry]

To me this list contains a single monster, the goblin, along with a collection of random abilities that I could slap on any humanoid that would make just as much sense. How many monsters do we have now?

Indeed, 5e may start doing exactly that -- or a third-party product might see the genius in that and do it. The trick is not "expand every single option", but to give a monster just enough that it feels different -- just how every gnoll has two abilities in common, or how every goblin can do the "shift after being missed", or the kobold being master trappers and "shifty", someone could come out with a book of templates just like the "champion" or "death master" templates from the DMG, except them being for common monsters and not just elites. I'm doing this now, taking things like the Basilisk's core abilities of the slow aura and the petrifying gaze and applying them to, say, giant constrictor snakes, to make a different monster altogether. Someone who comes up with a book that has "combat role templates" could do well.

 

[Phaezen]

To me this list contains a single monster, the goblin, along with a collection of random abilities that I could slap on any humanoid that would make just as much sense. How many monsters do we have now?

To me it contains several new monters as each will likely be at a different level with a different rol. Some will be elite, one or two will be minions and each will provide a different challenge based around the goblin racial abilities.

Phaezen

 

[ExploderWizard]

Indeed, 5e may start doing exactly that -- or a third-party product might see the genius in that and do it. The trick is not "expand every single option", but to give a monster just enough that it feels different -- just how every gnoll has two abilities in common, or how every goblin can do the "shift after being missed", or the kobold being master trappers and "shifty", someone could come out with a book of templates just like the "champion" or "death master" templates from the DMG, except them being for common monsters and not just elites. I'm doing this now, taking things like the Basilisk's core abilities of the slow aura and the petrifying gaze and applying them to, say, giant constrictor snakes, to make a different monster altogether. Someone who comes up with a book that has "combat role templates" could do well.

Bingo! The 4E black box design is perfect for this. To me a "monster" or particular creature is a race with certain defining characteristics. The combat abilities an individual may have do not make it a new monster.
Using monster roles as a general heading to categorize a great many different abilities is a great way to go. Its the method I am using in my own ultimate ediition. All of the abilities can be defined in one easy to find place and organized by role and general power level along with info about scaling up HD/levels. This leaves lots of room for more racial types in the same page space along with room for ecology and cultural information.

 

[Hussar]

Bingo! The 4E black box design is perfect for this. To me a "monster" or particular creature is a race with certain defining characteristics. The combat abilities an individual may have do not make it a new monster.
Using monster roles as a general heading to categorize a great many different abilities is a great way to go. Its the method I am using in my own ultimate ediition. All of the abilities can be defined in one easy to find place and organized by role and general power level along with info about scaling up HD/levels. This leaves lots of room for more racial types in the same page space along with room for ecology and cultural information.

The question in my mind is, do you need those defining characteristics dictated to you in order to have a new monster. The example earlier was the difference between a goblin and a kobold. Mechanically, in 3e, they were pretty much identical. The only difference is +1 to hit and 1 hit point. Oh, and +1 to Fort. Not exactly major differences. Heck, they even use the same weapons - spears.

So, why not have a single stat block and you can slap on whatever humanoid description you feel like? Or, better yet, a collection of stat blocks ranging in power level and tactics, that you can slap on whatever description you like?

Why does every creature need a new stat block when there is no particular mechanical difference?

I mean, people complained about the lack of elementals. Come on. Need an air elemental? Take a hippogriff, call it a mobile cloud and you're done. Level 5 air elemental. Fire elemental? Take a Fire Snake and level it up or down as needed.

Respec'ing monsters is pretty easy.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

To me this list contains a single monster, the goblin, along with a collection of random abilities that I could slap on any humanoid that would make just as much sense. How many monsters do we have now?

So basically, 4e is a list of what 6 monsters with "random" abilities tacked on and levels...