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

[Saitou]

I personally don't need 4e to give me permission to seize control of my game again, but-- for the sake of folks who seem to need "permission" and want everything "official"-- I'm glad it's coming back.

This is not a problem for the average Joe DM and his homebrew campaign.


This is a huge problem for people who publish licensed products which fall under much heavier scrutiny.

 

[Wormwood]

This is not a problem for the average Joe DM and his homebrew campaign.

Actually, it can be a problem for Joe DM if his players are operating within 3e's default assumptions.

 

[Saitou]

Actually, it can be a problem for Joe DM if his players are operating within 3e's default assumptions.

I refuse to sympathise with DMs who play with powergamers dickwads.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I refuse to sympathise with DMs who play with powergamers dickwads.

But these poor Dms need your sympathies the most!

 

[Kwalish Kid]

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.

I, frankly, don't understand what the complaint is here. I mean, I think I understand what the complaint is, but I can't comprehend how someone could have this complaint.

From what has been said, it's fairly certain that for a creature like the gnoll:
1) The creature is a versatile one that can play different roles,
2) The roles that gnolls tend to take, and the way that they enact these roles, is explicitly laid out in the MM,
3) The mechanics for creating a gnoll PC, or NPC hero, are laid out in the appendix to the MM.

This leaves me with some questions:

If there is a problem with wanting to figure out how a gnoll fills a certain role, how much clearer could this be than having the actual roles, with all the suggested mechanics, actually placed before a DM?

If there is a problem with DMs figuring out how to make gnolls that fill a different role, isn't the examples of gnolls for other roles an excellent resourse?

If there is a problem with creating new gnolls, isn't the information in the appendix enough? (It may be that the gnoll, specifically, isn't a monster with a PC write-up available initially. However, the gnoll is simply one example of the humanoids and we could pick another.)

Isn't the information provided in the MM for standard humanoid races exactly what a DM needs for "bottom-up" design?

 

[Pinotage]

I, frankly, don't understand what the complaint is here. I mean, I think I understand what the complaint is, but I can't comprehend how someone could have this complaint.

The general complaint is that the MM is filled with non-unique creatures, in that every creature, such as the gnoll, contains 10 varieties. I'd far prefer to see a MM filled with 500 unique creatures, than one filled with 150 unique creatures and 350 'filler' creatures that are just different combinations of the same thing. That's not saying they're not useful, it's just saying that you're only paying for 150 creatures, rather than paying for 500. The other 350 you can do youself with minimal effort. At present, 350 creatures are a waste of space in terms of unique material, although they're potentially useful.

I think most of your other questions are unrelated to this issue, apart from this one:

Isn't the information provided in the MM for standard humanoid races exactly what a DM needs for "bottom-up" design?

Not necessarily. 4e's design paradigm is to take a role and design the mechanics based on that. It's top down approach. 3e's approach is to take the mechanics and build those up into a role. That's bottom's up approach. They're very different. You're also assuming that the 4e MM is actually going to contain information that will allow you to do a bottom up design, which it might not. But I think in general the philosophy in 4e is top down, since most of the design is assign a role and function, use guidelines to determine the rest. We have no knowledge, that I'm aware of, on what specifically or mechanically constitutes the unique characteristics of any creature, such as, a gnoll.

Pinotage

 

[green slime]

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.

Halleluya!

Keep preaching the word!

 

[Zinovia]

I mean, do we really need kuo-toa and locathah and merfolk and tritons and sahuagin? How many variants on "fish-people" (okay, technically the kuo-toa are "frog-people," but it's not like players are gonna notice the difference) do we have to have?

I agree. Just call them all murlocs and be done with it.

 

[Dragonblade]

It seems that 4e monster design will still offer all the customization of 3e, but will make it easier for the DM to just wing it.

Plus it offers several different ready made roles for monsters in the MM. I like having 4 different gnoll types in MM. This is a vast improvement over having a single gnoll that the DM has to spend time and effort making unique. But if I want to take that time and effort, I can still do so.

4e monster design is simply an improvement over 3e monster design in every way.

 

[Wormwood]

The other 350 you can do youself with minimal effort.

And those of us who would rather run monsters right out of the book?

You like to tinker? Mazeltov. Knock yourself out.

With the 4e, you can still tinker to your hearts content while I run 'em right out of the book. An option that 3e didn't encourage.