Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Allister" data-source="post: 4496932" data-attributes="member: 1082">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. Kobold2. Goblin3. Ogre4. Hobgoblin5. Gnoll6. OrcBy 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</blockquote>