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

[Lizard]

6-7 hours of prep work for 5-6 hours of game time? OH HELL NO. This is a game, not a second job.

Yeah, I spend maybe an hour prepping for a 3 hour session. Half the time, one sessions prep covers 2 sessions, since the roleplaying ALWAYS takes longer than I figured it would.

 

[AllisterH]

All the 4e kobolds are just kobolds. Viewing them from a 3e perspective, they have different feats, spells, weapons, etc. but they're still kobolds. 'Unique' creatures, but still only one unique race. I don't really see this as any different to MMIV. The classes are just disguised because they're not named as such, but the mechanical effect is exactly the same.

Pinotage

So, do you consider kobolds, orcs, gnolls, goblins and hobgoblins unique entries in the MM?

There's MUCH less differentiation between a pre 4E goblin and kobold then there is between the kobolds we've seen so far.

I still consider these kobolds akin to MMV rather than MM4.

 

[fafhrd]

I view unique as a separate race

Convenient.

 

[Keenath]

Don't forget the Sepia Dwarven Nosepicker and Moss Green Elven Butt Scratcher.

/obscure silly anime reference

"Annnnd Shinesman Gray!"

The toughest might be the Goblin Picador, if you don't own a dictionary . . . (for those who don't, a picador is a horseman who assists the matador in a bullfight)

That's true, but the word actually just means "pikeman" (or more generally, "spear-man").


By the way, what's with this thing about "ten variants"? NOTHING has ever suggested anything like that many -- it looks like most creatures will have between 1 and 4 statblocks, with humanoid monster races (such as Orcs, Goblins, Gnolls) having the maximum and creature-monsters (like ettercaps, basilisks, and manticores) having only a single statblock.

Stuff like Dragons and Devils are a special case where you're grouping a whole family of related creatures rather than giving variants of a particular creature. (Though some of them are kind of straddling that line too -- such as having four variants of the Zombie.)

 

[Pinotage]

Convenient.

How so?

Pinotage

 

[Pinotage]

So, do you consider kobolds, orcs, gnolls, goblins and hobgoblins unique entries in the MM?

There's MUCH less differentiation between a pre 4E goblin and kobold then there is between the kobolds we've seen so far.

I still consider these kobolds akin to MMV rather than MM4.

Yes, that's right. Each entry for a given race is what I'd consider unique. Now I'm not saying 4e isn't reinventing a particular race from a flavor point of view. I think that certainly will define some difference between a kobold and a goblin. And, if Paizo's Classic Monsters Revisted comes out in a few months, I'd hope to see that difference there too. They did a grand job on the Pathfinder goblin.

From my point of view, mechanically the 4e monsters are just 3e monsters will classes. But I guess you're third on my list today of people to agree to disagree with!

Pinotage

 

[fafhrd]

How so?

Pinotage

By assuming your conclusion you've eliminated any hope of a real discussion.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I think we're not seeing eye-to-eye on what we define as unique. I view unique as a separate race, whereas I believe you're seeing it as a separate creature. The 4e kobolds are 'unique' creatures, sure, just like any creature is unique, but they're still kobolds. They're just different combinations of kobolds. You could fill an entire MM with combinations of kobolds, each being an 'unique' creature, but there'd only be one unique race - kobold.

...

What I would prefer is a MM with unique races. It just feels like you're getting more bang for you buck with 500 unique races rather than 150 unique races, and 350 specific creatures that share the similar races. If you could create one 'unique' creature from a race for each role (I think there are 6), then 4e MM can give you 900 creatures. I'd have hoped to see one give 3000, even if it took a little work on my part. More versatility.

...

Pinotage

Sorry to jump into your debate here, but I have to say that the idea of "unique", as you define it here, has absolutely no value to me in of itself. You seem to place a lot of value on it, but I do not.

For example, there are a lot of unique creatures in the 3E Monster Manual, but I imagine that I would only use less than 30% of the creatures in that book in actual gameplay. Many monsters like the Digester, Ythrak, Dretch, or various other creatures are certainly unqiue, but they are not interesting or useful.

Having a wider variety of interesting and useful creatures in a Monster Manual is far better "bang for your buck" than a large number of unique creatures who may not be interesting or useful. I find things like the Goblin Picador or Kobold Sharpshooter to be more interesting and useful than unique creatures like the Ethereal Filcher or Tojanida, and I can much more easily put things like them to use in building encounters, adventures and campaigns.

I would much rather have a Frost Giant Viking, Frost Giant Jarl, Frost Giant Skald, and Frost Giant Shieldmaiden than a Frost Giant, Ash Giant, Sludge Giant, and Wonder Giant.

 

[Pinotage]

By assuming your conclusion you've eliminated any hope of a real discussion.

The D&D monster design system is based on taking a base creature and modifying it. I don't think 4e deviates too much from that. Within that system, you can change the base creature in a variety of ways - templates, class levels, HD advancement, adding special abilities - really anything that you want to sculpt the creature you want to (irrespective of system). If you want to get the most versatility out of your system, then the more 'base' creatures you have, the more creatures you can take through this process of monster improvement. I think that's a fair assumption of unique - a base creature that can be modified, that is unique in its race compared to any other creature.

Take my earlier example. If you have 500 base creatures, you can give each 6 roles, and create 3000 different creatures. If you only have 150 base creatures and 350 creatures based on those creatures that already have a role, you could've created only 900 creatures, but you've already created 350 of those. Which one is more bang for your buck? Which one is more versatile?

Pinotage

 

[Pinotage]

Sorry to jump into your debate here, but I have to say that the idea of "unique", as you define it here, has absolutely no value to me in of itself. You seem to place a lot of value on it, but I do not.

For example, there are a lot of unique creatures in the 3E Monster Manual, but I imagine that I would only use less than 30% of the creatures in that book in actual gameplay. Many monsters like the Digester, Ythrak, Dretch, or various other creatures are certainly unqiue, but they are not interesting or useful..

You make a good point. But, imagine you had 500 'unique' creatures in a book and only 250 were useful, you'd still have 250 unique creatures to 'play' with and change to create even more creatures (like assigning each one, one of 6 roles). If you have 150 creatures, and 350 created from those, and only 75 of those base creatures were useful, you'd have a lot less creatures. I'd much rather have more monsters and the potential to create vastly more than a small number and no real potential to expand on that.

Pinotage