4e Has Less Raw Content: Fact!

[justanobody]

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

Probably only in the same sense that it is only one class with random abilities tacked on at varying levels. I think there are more than just 6 monsters, even though I am sure you said that in jest. But you are right that they are not many save for some bells and whistles to dress up random humanoid A differently from B.

 

[Allister]

Wouldn't this complaint that all 4e monsters are basically the same apply to all monsters before?

I mean, if I crack open either my 3e or 2e MM and look at these creatures.

1. Kobold
2. Goblin
3. Ogre
4. Hobgoblin
5. Gnoll
6. Orc

By ExploderWizard's reasoning, these are 6 separate and distinct entries, yet the kobold entry in the 4E is considered one, even though there are more mechanical differences among the six stat blocks in the 4e MM Kobold entry than the entirety of the 6 monsters I listed above?

I mean, if for some reason, I didn't describe the look of the 6 monsters when I play them, would a player be able to distinguish between the 6 monsters AT ALL?

Contrast this with now. Even if I didn't describe the opponents and simply used their stat blocks, the six entries underneath the kobolds will not only play differently but at the same time, be linked by a common theme which makes them distinct from say the Gnoll entry.

I'm honestly curious as to what people consider a unique and separate entry. Personally, this was always my problem with the 2E list of monsters as many, MANY of them were not that different.

As an example, I consider the Trogolyte (sp?) and the Troll distinct monsters since if I didn't mention what they looked like, my players could identify them by the mechancis such as the stench and the regeneration

 

[Benimoto]

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 heroic tier, MM II on the paragon tier, and MM III on the epic tier, with each MM having some monsters for the other tier.

I have similar ideas as to what I want out of my Monster Manuals, but from a slightly different perspective. From my point of view, I prefer each MM to have a full range of monsters through all levels. That way, you can play a campaign from 1-30 and then when you finish that one and are ready to start a new one, there's a new Monster Manual out with all new monsters.

That's my point of view, since in my home group, we play weekly, with a fairly rapid rate of advancement. If we advanced through levels more slowly, or if we were prone to restarting the campaign more often, I'm sure I'd have different priorities.

 

[TerraDave]

Its all about focus.

4E core gives you enough to play, but will leave many wanting more. Probably not an accident.

I agree with jgbrowning and other posters: I would have liked more monster "fluff" and less high level stuff. That is an obvious catagory for future supplements. A few more "classic" options in the core wouldn't have hurt either.

 

[Benimoto]

Exactly. Why do we need 5 or 6 completely different stat blocks for goblins when one will do then just add abilities based on role. This would allow for more race/ ability combos without reprinting statblocks for the monster.

The defining difference is that the method you describe is simply cloning a set of combat statistics with new skin. It also points out that ecology and culture are meaningless. There are major differences in an air elemental and a hippogriff beyond combat statistics. If not then it is a bland flavorless world indeed.

Just looking at the 4e Monster Manual, it seems to me that just applying abilities based on role would lead to much less variety and flavor. For example, just a few of the level 2 skirmishers, the Elf Scout, the Gray Wolf, and the Halfling Thief have wildly differing abilities not at all tied into their "base monster". They're clearly all different monsters. At the same time, their abilities aren't just "random". To me, it's clear that they were chosen to reflect both the flavor of their race as well as their role in combat.

Similarly, the Goblin Hexer and Goblin Skullcleaver are clearly different monsters, despite both being goblins. It's not even a matter of just their roles being different. Although the Goblin Skullcleaver is a level 3 brute, he has very different abilities, than another level 3 brute, the Gravehound.

In my play experience, every monster I've encountered from the Monster Manual has been a different monster in combat. They all required a subtly different approach in battle, and it wasn't just a matter of their race, level or role.

I miss the detailed monster descriptions of the 2e Monstrous Compendium days (though looking back through them, quite a few were just copy/pasted filler in places) but I consider what I'm getting with the 4e Monster Manual a good value for the money.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Wouldn't this complaint that all 4e monsters are basically the same apply to all monsters before?

I mean, if I crack open either my 3e or 2e MM and look at these creatures.

1. Kobold
2. Goblin
3. Ogre
4. Hobgoblin
5. Gnoll
6. Orc

By ExploderWizard's reasoning, these are 6 separate and distinct entries, yet the kobold entry in the 4E is considered one, even though there are more mechanical differences among the six stat blocks in the 4e MM Kobold entry than the entirety of the 6 monsters I listed above?

I mean, if for some reason, I didn't describe the look of the 6 monsters when I play them, would a player be able to distinguish between the 6 monsters AT ALL?

Contrast this with now. Even if I didn't describe the opponents and simply used their stat blocks, the six entries underneath the kobolds will not only play differently but at the same time, be linked by a common theme which makes them distinct from say the Gnoll entry.

I'm honestly curious as to what people consider a unique and separate entry. Personally, this was always my problem with the 2E list of monsters as many, MANY of them were not that different.

As an example, I consider the Trogolyte (sp?) and the Troll distinct monsters since if I didn't mention what they looked like, my players could identify them by the mechancis such as the stench and the regeneration

For those running a combat boardgame the difference between how many squares a creature can push something is vastly more important than how such creatures fit into the world and interact with other races. It all depends on your priorities. For use with a mini or war game the 4E MM is by far the best bang for the buck.

I don't care to buy five or more bloated books filled by creatures with only combat stats when the same information could reasonably fit into two or three. Lets see what possible reason could there be to make six different whole statblocks for a goblin?

1) Less classic monster races per book = more books
2) Goblin can't really be trademarked, Goblin buttscratcher possibly can.
3) Minis can be marketed based on these brand names

Its win-win for the company, not so much for the gamer.

 

[tomBitonti]

Exactly. Why do we need 5 or 6 completely different stat blocks for goblins when one will do then just add abilities based on role. This would allow for more race/ ability combos without reprinting statblocks for the monster.

The defining difference is that the method you describe is simply cloning a set of combat statistics with new skin. It also points out that ecology and culture are meaningless. There are major differences in an air elemental and a hippogriff beyond combat statistics. If not then it is a bland flavorless world indeed.

I came to this same conclusion when reading the 4E MM: The monsters are badly underfactored. (As evidence: I didn't have to scan too far to find examples where the stats could have been represented as a base creature and then a set of adjustments to create the higher level version or the version adapted to a particular role or set of exceptional abilities.)

I will grant that the 4E MM is more useful a quick reference. But, in that light, it is a very wrong implementation. Today, that quick reference would be much better as a bit of software (select goblin, select 'elite template', select 'advance by remainder to level 8', then export to file or cut and paste). The current implementation is so much dead trees.

(Say: Do think there is a market for this as an IPhone App? Anyone want to work on it?)

One difficulty that I have is that there are insufficient guidelines for how the monsters were advanced. (The adjustments don't quite make sense. Sometimes, the stats were advanced, and the resulting abilities adjusted for that, and sometimes there is a size adjustment thrown in, but sometimes there is an X that comes out of nowhere.)

Thx!

 

[ExploderWizard]

To me, it's clear that they were chosen to reflect both the flavor of their race as well as their role in combat.

Similarly, the Goblin Hexer and Goblin Skullcleaver are clearly different monsters, despite both being goblins. It's not even a matter of just their roles being different. Although the Goblin Skullcleaver is a level 3 brute, he has very different abilities, than another level 3 brute, the Gravehound.

In my play experience, every monster I've encountered from the Monster Manual has been a different monster in combat. They all required a subtly different approach in battle, and it wasn't just a matter of their race, level or role.

Ok bolded text done by me to illustrate my point. As pure collections of combat statistics used in running tabletop battles the 4E MM has a lot.

For broad selection of creatures to inhabit a living and lifelike campaign world the 4E MM has next to nothing.

 

[Benimoto]

Ok bolded text done by me to illustrate my point. As pure collections of combat statistics used in running tabletop battles the 4E MM has a lot.

For broad selection of creatures to inhabit a living and lifelike campaign world the 4E MM has next to nothing.

Sure, well the bolded stuff was my point too. Really, what I need out of the Monster Manual is a collection of interesting and unique monsters complete with combat statistics. Those are the parts that takes time and inspiration to think up, and the stuff I have the most problems with just improvising. All that other stuff about the monster's culture, ecology, is often so generic or non-useful that I may as well just throw it out.

Previous Monster Manuals spent a lot of text with a physical description (which sometimes didn't even match the picture). They had a description of their society, which at least 50% of the time boiled down to "These are monsters that live in the dark parts of the world. They like to fight adventurers." There was information on what sorts of groups they were found in, which I ignored, putting them in whatever sort of combat or non-combat group I felt best suited the adventure. There was even often information on how many noncombatants were required to support their society, which through 18 years of DMing I never once payed attention to.

So I have to fundamentally disagree with your second paragraph. The 4e Monster Manual has exactly what I need. It has a picture, a few paragraphs of text to explain the monster, and then some stat blocks to show how I can work this monster or groups of this type of monster into the action sections of my adventures. Everything else I just made up for myself anyways.

 

[Hammerhead]

Unique abilities for each monster do far more to define the creature for people actually playing the game than half a page telling me where they live and what they eat.

As such, similar but not identical monsters in 4e, like Dragons, play far more differently from each other than the dragons in 3e. I mean, the only real difference was some spell-like abilities you generally didn't see in a fight, plus the type of breath weapon.

To me, the 4th Edition Monster Manual is the best one we've seen so far...although to be fair, I've been reading monster manuals for a long time now. So what do I know about Manticores? Only goddamn near everything. If I was a newer, less experienced player, I might find the lack of flavor daunting.

Skip the fluff, just give more monsters of each type. Maybe if there's enough demand, WotC or 3PP could release a "Monster Ecology" or "Monster Guide" that describes their unique sociological and ecological niche for the people who care about that kind of thing. 4th Edition MM is great.