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

[Wormwood]

ah, thanks. I hadn't read the whole thing.

Let me save you some time (and considerable pain): link to post 71

 

[Lizard]

Monster design will most definitely be more challenging than before. Developing those monsters? Absolutely not.

Not sure I follow this.

Ideas are easy; mechanics are hard. Looks like 4e monster design mechanics will be "Cross index level and role to find attributes, AC, attack bonus, etc; add 2-4 Cool Powers."

 

[FourthBear]

I would rather they did keep the base race (orc, kobold, gnoll, etc.) with templates or something to add to give them the berserker or shaman or rager or beastmaster feel. You can still keep the NPC creation simple (as they claimed to have done anyway)...

For the kobold, hobgoblin and orc races, I believe they've already stated that there will be write-ups for PC style characters. And, even if there weren't, everything we've heard about classes indicates that they are almost entirely additive to characteristics that monsters already have. So I don't see anything preventing people from simply adding class levels onto monsters as they wish. So it seems that the 4e MM will allow DMs who want out-of-the book encounters with pre-made write-ups possible. And for those who prefer the 3e method of creating your own classed monsters, you can still do so. Or you could just make your own monster-style write-up by consulting the level and role guidelines for monster creation and add your own special abilities.

I'm not sure how these premade write-ups in any way restrict or inhibit DMs with their own creations.

 

[Pinotage]

But this also requires me to spend 8+INT x 4 + 2+INT skill points, and pick up one bonus feat. And I have to look up the class charts to tel me the new monsters saves and BAB, and recalculate HP. For a 2nd level monster, this is fine. If you'd want to run a combat against a number of kobolds making it reasonable having three distinct types (2 excluding the base monster), it gets a little more."

I don't think you'd need a bonus feat. There's a 1st level feat (say Swarm Attack) and the Fighter bonus feat (say Dragon Shield). In any case, I don't think nitpicking the statistics was the point of what I was trying to illustrate. I've not argued against 3e being more complex or more time-consuming than 4e. Of course you're right that it gets more difficult at higher levels. Let's hope Level 26 for 4e is not as difficult to run as Level 16 for 3e. I hope there is a good balance of creatures across level in the new MM. Then again, once you've created these critters once, you can use them as often as you want.

Pinotage

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

And most importantly, how long does it take you to work out the concept of the Kobold Dragon Shield to begin with?

With Fourth Edition, I don't have to be creative anymore!

GOOD. GOD. ALMIGHTY.

 

[Saitou]

Not sure I follow this.

Ideas are easy; mechanics are hard. Looks like 4e monster design mechanics will be "Cross index level and role to find attributes, AC, attack bonus, etc; add 2-4 Cool Powers."

You seem to ahve taken each term to have the other's meaning. Or perhaps I am at fault? Even though I am well studied in English, such slips do occur.

 

[Pinotage]

This is missing the point.

Yes, with enough work in 3E, with all the splatbooks at your command, you can construct a kobold who has roughly the same abilities as the Kobold Dragon Shield.

But how many splatbooks do you have to use? And how long does it take you? And most importantly, how long does it take you to work out the concept of the Kobold Dragon Shield to begin with?

The 4E Monster Manual has already done all that work, balanced it, packaged it, and made it ready to play.

It is? I believe you were saying that you thought each of the 4e creatures was unique. I then repackaged the 4e critter as it would look in 3e as a way of illustrating that the apparant 'uniqueness' is class levels in disguise slapped onto a base monster. In essense, the 4e variants are not different from 3e variants with classes. Ala MM4. Although I take the earlier point that some of them are likely a little more akin to MM5, but that's another matter.

It's a fair point to say that the 4e creatures do contain new mechanics (new 'feats'), but I don't think it invalidates what I was saying above since giving a base creatures a new feat or two hardly makes it unique.

Pinotage

 

[FourthBear]

With Fourth Edition, I don't have to be creative anymore!

GOOD. GOD. ALMIGHTY.

Actually, from all appearance, in 4e it will be much simpler to go from concept to execution in monster design. If specific examples are supposed to represent the destruction of creativity, then that must mean that 3.5e with its innumerably greater number of current examples must be far less conducive to creativity than 4e. And that all editions of D&D become less and less creative as more and more examples are provided that DMs can use.

GREAT. BALLS. OF. FIRE.

 

[Dausuul]

It is? I believe you were saying that you thought each of the 4e creatures was unique. I then repackaged the 4e critter as it would look in 3e as a way of illustrating that the apparant 'uniqueness' is class levels in disguise slapped onto a base monster. In essense, the 4e variants are not different from 3e variants with classes.

Never said they were. Your 3E creations are unique, too. The difference is that you had to put a bunch of work into making them.

With Fourth Edition, I don't have to be creative anymore!

GOOD. GOD. ALMIGHTY.

If my creative efforts were limited to making up new variants on the theme of "kobold mook," I'd throw out my D&D books and take up watching grass grow.

Creating variant mooks is, frankly, campaign scut work. That's what I pay WotC for. I'd rather invest that creative effort in making up an interesting plot, a cool game world, and important NPCs.

 

[warlockwannabe]

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.

Hmm, soo let me get this straight. If I dont like it, then anyone who does like it is lame?