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

[Wormwood]

Now, to be honest, I don't think I could have done it without PCGen, but hey, we'll have DDI for 4e, right?

The fact that I needed electronic tools to get the most out of 3.5 is the reason I no longer run 3.5

I'm looking forward to the DDI, but if Wizards fumbles the ball so badly that I need the DDI, then I'm off this roller coaster for good.

Luckily, every indication is that this won;t be the case.

 

[Lizard]

Exactly.



Is this a trick question?

Nope.

Since the character creation tool will be part of 4e, as opposed to being a third party add on, there's less excuse for simplifying custom monster creation. We'll all have the tools to make it easy!

 

[hong]

Nope.

Since the character creation tool will be part of 4e,

It will?

as opposed to being a third party add on,

You say this like it's a mutually exclusive and exhaustive thing.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well that is for creating PCs not Monsters, if you want to make a Monster the equivalent of a PC go ahead.

If you however just want a nice, simple monster that can do a variety of combat-significant abilities the MM is your thing, also with things like aberrations, dragons, etc. I can't see a PC-creator being able to cover this.

 

[Celebrim]

Anyone in 3E could have made a 4E stat block just by not caring quite as much about getting it 'right'. Rules were made to be broken, and they were. As far as I can tell, 4E simply gives you permission. Maybe it's the 1E DM in me, but I never thought I needed it. If I just wanted a monster for a fight, getting its skill points exactly right is pretty pointless.

But, I find taking things out or changing things is easier than putting things back in.

As best as I can tell, the 4E block is just a comprimise between 1E and 3E. It's the Jack of All Trades, master of none approach. It's worked for D&D historically, but I'm guessing that people who are praising how this lets you use monsters right out of the box, probably won't actually do so. The urge to tinker is strong. Especially in those people who complain about how much work there was in getting something 'right' for 3E. Hint: No one forced them to get it exactly right.

Leave off the fluff, confine the monsters to one or two powers each, and you can fit 500 3E monsters in a manual too.

Considering I didn't buy MM's 2-5, I guess I'm not the target audience anyway.

 

[Wormwood]

. . . but I'm guessing that people who are praising how this lets you use monsters right out of the box, probably won't actually do so.

Well, in my case your guess is wrong.

edit: I want a book of monsters to use right off the page---not a book of monsters that I need to customize.

 

[hong]

Anyone in 3E could have made a 4E stat block just by not caring quite as much about getting it 'right'. Rules were made to be broken, and they were. As far as I can tell, 4E simply gives you permission. Maybe it's the 1E DM in me, but I never thought I needed it. If I just wanted a monster for a fight, getting its skill points exactly right is pretty pointless.

But, I find taking things out or changing things is easier than putting things back in.

This desire to buy rules that you don't actually use, it is very strange. Perhaps it is a security blanket thing.

 

[Campbell]

I can see plenty of tools for tinkering with 4e monsters to create new opponents. The process might go something like this:

• Take a look at the unifying abilities and thematic focus of a race of monsters. Gnolls, for example, all have some variation of Pack Attack (an ability that models gnolls' capacity to coordinate their attacks to maximize the amount of hurt they inflict on a single foe) and are adept at taking advantage of an enemy while their down (bloodied).
• Come up with the conceptual underpinnings for the new adversary.
• Decide what monster role and level best fits.
• Take a look at various monster and class abilities that might be a useful springboard or can even be lifted wholesale for the critter.
• Optionally conceptualize new abilities that might prove useful.
• Do the mechanical heavy lifting required for the creature.

On a general level I like this approach better because

• It's focused on delivering the results you want rather than fighting a system that might not satisfy you.
• It doesn't hide the fact that creature creation is basically a design task.
• Creature complexity is not a function of level. You are not forced to assign a number of tricks (feats) because a monster is meant to challenge a higher level party.
• This is only a matter of perception, but designing NPCs in 3e felt too mechanical to me. The 4e process feels more like a creative endeavor. Fiddling around with feats and skill points never felt right.

 

[The Little Raven]

Well, in my case your guess is wrong.

edit: I want a book of monsters to use right off the page---not a book of monsters that I need to customize.

I'm with you, there. With my limited prep time, I will be able to focus on the geometry and tactics of the encounter, rather than spending all my time looking at charts and tables and number crunching. This will give me time to make up a few cool, unique boss monsters.

 

[small pumpkin man]

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.

Strange, I think 4e abilities are a lot more evocative and interesting than ones I've seen in most RPG's I've played. Games Like M&M allow for players to create their own, which are often better/more appropriate, but as base abilities, I think "interesting and evocative" pretty much defines what I think of "You have failed me for the last time!" and "I crush the enemies between my 6 ft tall telekentic fists".