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

[fafhrd]

Anyone in 3E could have made a 4E stat block just by not caring quite as much about getting it 'right'.

As you note, you had to make it that way. 4e really is out of the box simple.

 

[EATherrian]

I think nostalgia plays a bigger role than anyone cares to admit. I'm pretty sure that if they introduced some of the classic monsters in this day and age, they'd be disparaged for how ridiculous they are, or how silly their name is.

Since the original response was to me I'll respond. I'm not saying that all the original names were from the transcendent lips of the muses. By no stretch of the imagination were all the names great. I just really don't like this compound naming convention I see in constant use in 4E. Can I just have an Orc, or can I only use a Orc Skullcrusher. If the latter is the generic Orc (by the way I have no idea yet), then why not just call it an Orc. For a company that wants to dispel the calls of video-gamization, they sure are choosing the most video-gamey naming convention they can.

 

[Campbell]

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!

Not seeing it. I don't think software should be required for custom monster creation. That line of thinking leads to the creeping HEROization of D&D...

 

[EATherrian]

Often I find that what some folks here think of as hackneyed and lame is evocative and cool.

All I need is an orc or goblin or hobgoblin. I don't need an Orc Skullcrusher, Goblin Snotslinger, or Hobgoblin Rousepolisher. Those names don't add anything useful. If you like it, you can do it now. I just want to make sure I can still do as I do now. To each their own and all.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

All I need is an orc or goblin or hobgoblin. I don't need an Orc Skullcrusher, Goblin Snotslinger, or Hobgoblin Rousepolisher. Those names don't add anything useful. If you like it, you can do it now. I just want to make sure I can still do as I do now. To each their own and all.

Well I view the names more as simply a way to say, "HEY! this is what I do!" So, it is less about having interesting names, more about going, hmm... I need goblin slinger, ahh! this goblin's name is "goblin slinger" I'll use that.

 

[EATherrian]

Well I view the names more as simply a way to say, "HEY! this is what I do!" So, it is less about having interesting names, more about going, hmm... I need goblin slinger, ahh! this goblin's name is "goblin slinger" I'll use that.

Not to snark, but there is no slinger, there is Sharpshooter. Now tell me the simple role of each of these just by sight: Gnoll - Clawfighter, Demonic Scourge, Huntmaster, Marauder. I can probably figure 2 off-hand and I'd still probably be wrong. I wouldn't mind names that actually told me what they did. Those are cool. It's these sorts of names I don't like.

 

[Lizard]

Well I view the names more as simply a way to say, "HEY! this is what I do!" So, it is less about having interesting names, more about going, hmm... I need goblin slinger, ahh! this goblin's name is "goblin slinger" I'll use that.

Shrug.

In Actual Play (tm), I refer to my classed humanoids by descriptive names -- Raiders, Axemen, Shaman, whatever -- so it's no big to have them. I'd prefer a consistent nomenclature to a race-specific one, but I see the reasoning behind why they're doing it.

 

[EATherrian]

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".

And if you get that from Goblin Picador good on you. I don't. Tell me what the monster (almost said mob) does. Since everything needs this compound name for Miniatures sales synergy, at least make the names useful.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

True say, but I still think there is some ground with having the add-on name, simply to distinguish between different types (even if they don't do so that clearly). Also while all the names may not be easily identifiable they can work with bringing some more thematics into it.

So for some who after reading the mechanics still don't quite know exactly where to fit it in, can look at the name, compare to mechanics to get a "vibe" for where it be used, if you get what I mean.

 

[Lackhand]

All I need is an orc or goblin or hobgoblin. I don't need an Orc Skullcrusher, Goblin Snotslinger, or Hobgoblin Rousepolisher. Those names don't add anything useful. If you like it, you can do it now. I just want to make sure I can still do as I do now. To each their own and all.

I really don't understand what you're complaining about. It seems that you don't like the most common, weakest form of a humanoid foe having a unique name. I'm not sure I can get behind that sentiment: You, the DM, are the only one who ever has to see that name, and as a DM, I know that I prefer having names for things to not having names for things.

Orc Skullcrusher = Orc Warrior 1. Seriously. Really, honestly, and truly.

(Hobgoblin Rousepolishers, however, are more like Hobgoblin Warrior 5. Rouses are hard to polish.)

Edit: It seems like you've nuanced your stance. As ever in matters of taste, when the specifics of naming conventions fail to please, there's not really a lot to talk about. I like many of the monstrous job-titles we've seen so far; I'm sorry they don't do it for you.