D&D 4E 4e Monster List - Dwarven Nosepicker & Elven Butt Scratcher

[GVDammerung]

Pardon if someone else has already noted much of the following. Some brave soul has compiled a list of known 4e monsters here - http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/Monsters & More (4th Edition).pdf

A really strong trend emerges. Witness:

Dwarf - Warlord
Elf - Archer
Gnoll - Clawfighter, Demonic Scourge, Huntmaster, Marauder
Goblin - Picador, Sharpshooter
Hobgoblin - Archer, Warcaster, Soldier
Human - Bandit, Mage, Berserker, Guard
Kobold - Archer, Dragonshield, Skirmisher, Minion, Slinger, Wyrmpriest

Each of the more common races are being given multiple individual monster entries based upon function or activity.

The list above is only what has been released to this point and is thus partial. It takes no imagination to think that the 4e monster manuals might be filled with literally dozens of variations on each racial or monster theme.

For example, the above list sports six sorts of kobolds. While the dwarf and elf entries sport only one sort, it is easy enough to imagine a Dwarven Rock Fighter, Dwarven Mountain Ranger, Dwaven Shield Warrior, Dwarven Nosepicker etc. Or Elven Forest Friend, Elven Forest Runner, Elven Forest Ranger, Elven Butt Scratcher etc.

What a brilliant design move for 4e! Imagine how easy it will be to fill monster manuals! Just think of the money that will need to spend to keep up!

If you add another adjective, things can only get better - Red Dwarven Nosepicker! Green Elven Butt Scratcher. As opposed to the black, white and puce versions.

Just amazing design.

 

[Pale Jackal]

Well, this MM will have over 500 monsters, so some overlap doesn't bother me.

Not to mention I, personally, prefer avoiding "Monster-of-the-Week" (or also "Look at what whacky monster alliance you're encountering this time!") type gameplay, so keeping goblins/kobolds/whatever interesting suits me fine.

 

[Wormwood]

Just amazing design.

Indeed it is.

Varied and unexpected encounters without requiring dozens of superfluous monsters who differ only in minor details.

And since you only have to print the 'fluff' once, many more monsters can fit in a single book---which is a huge benefit for this consumer.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It is very awesome.

Check it out:

Gnoll - Clawfighter, Demonic Scourge, Huntmaster, Marauder
These names invoke ideas of beastial fighters.

Hobgoblin - Archer, Warcaster, Soldier
Hobbies are bred for war. You can bet fighting a hobgoblin is quite different than fighting a gnoll.

Human - Bandit, Mage, Berserker, Guard
All walks of life, humans encompass all kinds of professions.

Flavorful monsters with unique abilities that play differently than other monsters, even of the same level. Beautiful. Because you're almost always going to be fighting multiple opponents, how boring would it be if the MM only included one kobold entry or one gnoll entry? Every gnoll encounter would be the same unless the DM statted out a special monster with levels or by giving abilities. And, we all know one of the primary goals of 4e was to lessen the amount of work for DMs. They're succeeding with spades!

So, yes, I agree! This is some of the best news for monsters we've seen, proving that WotC is getting done what was needed. Proving that they've got the stuff.

 

[Cadfan]

In my last campaign, I wanted battles against a hobgoblin army. That was the central feature of the campaign.

Do you have any idea how many hobgoblins I statted up so that I could create varied encounters without turning the hobgoblin army into a menagerie of wacky beasts? I had regular hobgoblins, hobgoblin rangers, hobgoblin scouts, hobgoblin beast riders, four types of hobgoblin spellcasters, and a sort of hobgoblin "death company" of the biggest and the best, that replaced their regular squad cleric with a squad necromancer. Plus all the leaders and special characters.

This was the experience that taught me the value of winging statblocks. What really matters for a mook? AC, HP, Attack, Damage, Saves, Visual Description. If I hadn't run this game, I would probably have been really against the 4e monster changes.

I greatly appreciate 4e doing some of the lifting on this sort of thing FOR me, instead of leaving me on my own. They come up with ideas that I do not (picadors? cute!), and they mostly avoid the mistakes I unforgivably make.

 

[Wormwood]

Because you're almost always going to be fighting multiple opponents, how boring would it be if the MM only included one kobold entry or one gnoll entry? Every gnoll encounter would be the same unless the DM statted out a special monster with levels or by giving abilities. And, we all know one of the primary goals of 4e was to lessen the amount of work for DMs. They're succeeding with spades!

And this.

 

[breschau]

A good way to predict the monsters we will see in the MMs is to look at the mini sets still available from WotC. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of multiple variations on each monster to help the DM, I'm just a bit pissed they're using the DDM monsters for the MM, instead of the other way around.

 

[FourthBear]

I'm far more concerned with whether DMs will find these stats actually useful in play over some kind of concern that each monster stat block should represent a whole new fantasy species. I mean, I could take the 3e stat blocks for hobgoblins, dwarves and elves and add class levels to them to generate stat blocks for advanced opponents. But I'm lazy and I'd rather have someone else do the work for me. Now, is it possible that they'll go too far and we'll have lower monster diversity in the 4e MM? Could be. If the monster generation process is as described (suggested values for a given level and role), I think that creating new monsters and modifying old ones should be significantly easier. So I"ll make my own. Frankly, the possibility that creating monsters on the fly will be much easier in 4e is one of the most exciting possibilities.

 

[EATherrian]

As long as there are stats for the creature itself without the extra video-gamey cheese added on I'll be fine with this. I just wish that they would realize what they think of as evocative and cool is usually hackneyed and lame.

 

[DM_Blake]

The thing I notice about this is that it looks like a MMO monster collection. Or even a CCG card list.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for having multiple versions of monsters statted out for me. Makes the chore of creating unique encounters against the same creature type much easier.

I just couldn't help that noticing that the names of these creatures feel very MMO and/or CCG ish.

If I could design the monster manual, I would create a base creature (e.g. Orc) who has a base HP, AC, Saves, etc. Then I would add a table under the base creature that has rows representing unique orcs (slinger, marauder, witch, rhino-rider, etc.), with columns that represent changes to the base stat block (column 1 would be what you add to their AC, column 2 adds to their HP, etc.). Better yet, these values replace the base values so DMs don't have to do any math on the fly.

That way I can maybe have hundreds of unique base creatures in the Monster Manual, with ultimately over a thousand total creatures once you count the tables of variations.

Of course, that's a lot of work and it minimizes the profit value of selling MMII, MMIII, MMIV, etc., so I suspect that the actual MM will have fewer base creatures with lots of real estate take up by the variations - real estate that could have had other, new base creatures if the variations had been handled more efficiently.

Here's to hoping that the online data is really organized...