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

[Benimoto]

The usability within combat is very similar - though I note some exceptions: If you statted up a high level spellcasting monster, you would have a lot of "useless" spells - spells that don't matter when actually playing the game, but still cluttering the stat block... Non-Spellcasters are not that bad, though if you add to many feats for different combat maneuvers, you might still have a lot of information you need to process but won't use...

Right, this is my main point where the 4e simplified monsters is better. If you look at the stat blocks we've seen, you'll notice that all the monster's abilities have the name of the ability and what they do right in the stat block. If you look at 3rd edition stat blocks, you'll see that it just has a big block of ability names in the feats, the spells, and sometimes the equipment section. So, this turns complicated monsters or high-level NPCs into a page-flipping nightmare. It doesn't have to happen during combat, you can do it in prep time, but it still takes time and fairly meaningless page flipping and indexing in 3rd edition that it doesn't in 4th edition.

Plus, the other issue. Having run plenty of 3rd edition Living Greyhawk modules, as well as official WoTC modules, I can mention that if a creature has a feat, spell or magic item that's not in the core books, they have to include a description of it in the module somewhere, like an appendix. That means that you sometimes have to be moving between 2-4 different sources just to know what your monster does in combat.

The 4e version, with extraneous spells, feats and stuff not even listed, and everything else spelled out, is a much better way. It's admittedly inconsistent with PC design, but the tradeoffs are worth it in my opinion.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

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.

When people talk about the pervasive racism of D&D, this post above is an example of the kind of thing that they point to. There is a longstanding tradition in D&D that we can identify some sentient beings simply by their race.

Now I don't think that 4E makes any great strides in this area, but at least it appears that the monster manual makes an effort to give DMs an understanding of not just that monsters fight but how they fight in a way that might be tied to the culture of a sentient group.

 

[Jack99]

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

I did something similar w/o PCGen, and it sucks. June can't come quickly enough.

 

[Pinotage]

I tend to disagree. From playing around with the monsters in 4E with the playtest characters, they really do play differently. Moreso than simply adding a feat to the 3E version.

These are both Gnolls yet in play, they act differently moreso than simply giving one gnoll a bow and another gnoll a sword. Its more than just adding a feat which I agree anyone could do, but actually rejigging the monster to best utilize that feat which is what I tended to have a problem with or simply forget in 3.x. The gnoll in 3.x only has a DEX of 10 meaning if I just ignore DEX requirements for feats, the fact that the std creature is designed for one style of combat, it is really hard to change it for a differnt style.

You have to remember that the 4e gnolls provide multiple stat blocks for creatures that are designed for different roles (but are essentially the same creature). Think of the 3e gnoll as a generic template for creating as many gnolls as you like. Give the gnoll a level in a class, use the standard array, switch the ability scores around so the 13 is in Dexterity, for example, and you have your archer. If you do that, I fail to see how they'll play differently, as long as you design the 3e one to fit the 4e one's role.

The fact is that 4e provides you with multiple stat blocks, and has essentially done the work for you. Some people, like myself, don't want to see this proliferation of 10 types of a single creature in a MM. It's MM4 all over again. I'd rather see a generic creature that I can change the way I want it. Conversely, if there is a gnoll role that's not in 4e, how do I go about keeping the flavor of the gnoll and changing it? It's a difference between top down design and bottom up design. I like the latter.

Pinotage

 

[ObsidianCrane]

Please see my post above my answer to the whole "But you CAN add class levels to them in 4e!" thing. You can. It's just a bad idea in most cases. (As opposed to 3e, where it's a good idea unless you want to switch monster palettes every level or two.)

And you know its a bad idea how?

Face it, what you mean is "I think it is a bad idea because I think it will not align with my playstyle."

Which is what most of the arguments in this thread against 4E monster design amount to, excepting the ones that just show the person making them hasn't bothered to actually read the information available about the MM and monster design.

Admitedly for me, I think 4e monster design options are a good thing because I think they will align to my playstyle. But at least I'm not trying to claim the rules are bad without having actually read said rules, or played with the full rules.

I know I have been hacking monsters together pretty much exactly how they work in 4E since 2E - I assign the numbers and abilities according to the challenge I expect the monster to present - as long as the monster looks like its following the rules to the players they are never the wiser about it, and by golly they have fun with it. Thing about 3.X is it made me feel that wasn't the "right" thing to be doing because there were lots of rules for building monsters. A feeling made worse by the resident rules lawyer reverse engineering critters on the fly.

My time now is much more limited, I like the idea of having a page of different Gnolls and Goblins, I like the idea of exception based design, I like the idea of "give it the stuff that will make it work and be fun and get on with the fun", and by golly I'm hoping that 4E delivers these things in spades like it is has been promised.

 

[Pinotage]

I could have sworn I wanted to add/replace playability with usability. Since I didn't let me rephrase it here:
The usability of the mechanics is better/easier from the Dungeons Masters point of view.
He gets ready-made statistics for a monster in different roles. He can create new monsters using basic guidelines without getting into the complexity of statting the monster up as if it was a fully-fledged player character.

Yes. The 4e one will likely be easier to run. Not better. Just easier.

Pinotage

 

[DandD]

Wait, isn't easier also better?

 

[Pinotage]

Wait, isn't easier also better?

Most definitely not. And that's true for a whole slew of things unrelated to RPGs. Easier isn't always better. It's far easier, for example, to just throw out all the 4e or 3e rules, but that's not always the best solution, is it?

Pinotage

 

[Doug McCrae]

Wait, isn't easier also better?

Quicker, easier, more seductive 4e is.

 

[Wormwood]

Wait, isn't easier also better?

Perhaps not always---but in this case, for me? Oh hell yeah.