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

[fafhrd]

that is unique in its race compared to any other creature

This is where your argument goes off of the rails for me. Slapping a different race tag on a creature doesn't make it any more unique than changing the color of its underwear for purposes of game play.

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?

If the roles were the only thing to define the differences between creatures of a given type, you'd have a point. In practice there's nothing to stop you from having a kobold slinger of every level 1-30. When you're done with that, you can start on the kobold alchemists, rock sliders, 4 armed kobold mutants etc.

 

[D'karr]

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.

You forgot the Jolly Green Giant.

 

[AndrewRogue]

Goodie.

Now the problem here for me is that, given prep time, a good chunk of it is devoted to coming up with the possibilities and basic plots that will be running around that session. Generally speaking, my PCs have this uncanny knack to leap between loyally following plot hooks and then shooting completely off the rails and taking things in an unexpected direction from moment to moment. While it is possible to actually fully plan out sessions for myself, I generally find it to be relatively ineffectual since it often leaves me with a few hours of time wasted a week because the PCs decided to go another direction.

Which, in part, is why I have no issue with this type of monster design. While I do have pretty fair "winging it" abilities (admittedly, I flop sometimes or I plan in advance sometimes), it can be difficult, especially in a system based around somewhat tight numerical balancing. As such, I am highly appreciative when a book provides me a nice set of prewritten monsters, especially humanoids, so that I don't have to whip out a large series of books to toss one together right quick/design it completely ad hoc.

While I do not have an issue creating monsters on the fly (and, indeed, will often take time to fully stat out bosses), I do sometimes get buried when I'm playing. I'll have stuff going on in the game IMs, the main chat and be a bit distracted by real life. While I can still DM (fairly decently I might add) under those conditions, having to toss together new monsters under those conditions is irritating at best, last straw at worst. Thus, the 4th Ed model appeals to me: when I need some throwaways and still want to make an interesting combat, I can just open the book to one page and have a full monster waiting for me.

 

[Primal]

Uhuh.

And I could give any monsters those same "unique" abilities in 3E, too. However, I think this sort of exception-based mechanics in a highly gamist system is awkward. First of all, as has been pointed out on many threads, it requires a lot DM "judgement calls" and houseruling -- often on the fly. I see it as a step backwards towards AD&D (my group had *tons* of houserules and we were glad as we got rid of them in 3E). It also requires a very good understanding of the system and balance, which only comes with experience (so new DMs may be struggling with 4E a lot more than they would have with 3E). And, as it has also been ponted out on several threads, the players may be interested in or irritated at these "unique" abilities -- they may want you to explain them in mechanical terms (such as the 'Meat Shield'-ability or those of the Assassin Mearls described) or their characters to have them. In the latter case you have to deny them or to houserule that ability into a Feat. Or what if the PCs want to use those "entangling" pots thrown by Kobold Warslingers? What is the 'prof. number' (attack bonus) with them? Or reserach how they could turn their bodies into water? Should you allow that? How would you explain it in game mechanics? I would noy buy any "Well, uh, it's kind of unique magic thing..."-type of stuff from my DM.

Here's the thing: 4E may let you tinker with a lot of stuff, but this requires both experience and a whole lot creative effort (which is really no different, in my opinion, how things work in 3E). I'm sure that DMG and MM have a lot of space devoted to just that, but this sort of creativity and the ability to improvise (and houserule) on the fly takes time to develop (e.g. Should this innkeeper have the 'Hurl Tankards within the Common Room'-special attack or is it outright silly? Should the armorsmith have 'Hammer Smash'-ability and/or 'Throw Anvil'?). It's especially hard to develop a sense of understanding, because some NPCs and PCs work under different rules than the rest.
Personally, I'd be all fine with these 'exception-based' abilities if we were talking about a Trait- or Quality-based system with PC abilities and talents freely defined or even improvised by the players as well (e.g. 'Strong as an ox +3' or 'Crimson Cut +5'). To me this sort of weird mix of very "crunchy" and clear-cut mechanics (which the PCs operate under) and a combination of freely-developed stuff and clear-cut mechanics (which the NPCs and monsters operate under) results in a confusing and problematic experience. Not to mention that it shatters my Sense of Disbelief. It feels like trying to combine some aspects of the Shadow of Yesterday with Riddle of Steel (alright, perhaps an exaggeration, but you get the point). Conspiracy of Shadows actually manages to do that surprisingly well, but then again, the system works the same way for everyone.

I wonder if less creative and experienced DMs find 4E *any* easier to run than 3E?

 

[TwinBahamut]

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

Well, your point sounds good in theory, but in practice it doesn't really work out as well as that. Namely, I think that the more a designer tries to make something "unique", and the more unique things that a designer has to create, the less useful and interesting the result.

In my opinion, there is something of a finite limit on how many truly excellent unique things (by your definition, for clarity's sake) can be created for any one monster book. This is strictly limited by factors like mythological history, previous good adaptations in D&D, and basic factors of how much time and energy the designers have to put into making interesting creatures. Because of these limits, I would not say that a book with 100 unique monsters and a book with 500 unique monsters would have the same ratio of good monsters to bad monsters. The book with 100 unique monsters may have 50% being good, but the book with 500 might only have something like 20% being good. If the book with 100 unique monsters then has something like 5 versions of each monster, we end up with two books that have 500 stats for creatures, with one being 50% good and the other being 20% good.

I guess I could phrase this as an idea that having multiple variations of a creature helps extend the advantage of a well-designed base creature. If a base creature is good, then people will want to build encounters, adventures, or even campaigns around that creature. In cases such as this, especially with monsters that have large populations and their own cultures, having a wide variety of versions of that creature makes it easier to build such adventures and encounters, making the DM less reliant on other unique base creatures (which may or may not be as interesting as the adventure-centric base creature).

Also, there is one more argument for the first Monster Manual in particular having a large number of "classed" monsters: the first 4E MM is going to be the first Monster Manual for new DMs. Having the kind of variety within a base creature type that the MM1 will have serves as a kind of tutorial for new DMs who don't realize the full extent to which the new monster deign scheme enables them to modify monsters and create new ones.

 

[TwinBahamut]

You forgot the Jolly Green Giant.

I considered it, but I thought Wonder Giant was silly-sounding enough. Also, wouldn't Jolly Green Giants be just a variant of Cloud Giants? Or were those Storm Giants? I can never remember...

 

[D'karr]

<snip>
they may want you to explain them in mechanical terms (such as the 'Meat Shield'-ability or those of the Assassin Mearls described) or their characters to have them. In the latter case you have to deny them or to houserule that ability into a Feat. Or what if the PCs want to use those "entangling" pots thrown by Kobold Warslingers? What is the 'prof. number' (attack bonus) with them? Or reserach how they could turn their bodies into water? Should you allow that? How would you explain it in game mechanics? I would noy buy any "Well, uh, it's kind of unique magic thing..."-type of stuff from my DM.

Honestly I've been running games for almost 30 years, with multiple groups and even at conventions, where table variety is even more pronounced, and I've never had this problem. Not once. Either I'm blessed or my policy of not DMing for asshats really does work.

Assigning a bonus or a penalty to something like using an improvised weapon is trivial and it doesn't take a master of improvisation to come up with.

Turning yourself into water? What? Explain it in game mechanics? Please. Honestly if a player would ask me that I'd probably laugh at them. The same way if a player came to my table with this awesome concept for his next character, the Tarrasque.

Why are DMs so afraid to simply do their jobs and adjudicate? Honestly, players are not going to bite.

 

[Pinotage]

This is where your argument goes off of the rails for me. Slapping a different race tag on a creature doesn't make it any more unique than changing the color of its underwear for purposes of game play.

If the roles were the only thing to define the differences between creatures of a given type, you'd have a point. In practice there's nothing to stop you from having a kobold slinger of every level 1-30. When you're done with that, you can start on the kobold alchemists, rock sliders, 4 armed kobold mutants etc.

I think you're still misunderstanding. If you have 500 base creatures, and x ways to modify them, then you can create 500x creatures. If you only have 150 creatures, you're still limited to x ways of creating new creatures, so your maximum is 150x. x includes ALL ways of modifying a particular base creature. I used only roles earlier so as not to confuse the issue, but obviously it has. Hopefully that clarifies matters.

Pinotage

 

[Pinotage]

Well, your point sounds good in theory, but in practice it doesn't really work out as well as that. Namely, I think that the more a designer tries to make something "unique", and the more unique things that a designer has to create, the less useful and interesting the result.

That's entirely possible. Owning quite a number of monster books for 3e, I suspect you'd easily come up with a whole bunch of unique creatures that are different from others and have their own race descriptions. But, I take your point that this is a first 4e MM, and it may be tailored to specific people (obviously not me). On the other hand, since most people are only likely to but the one MM, I would've hoped for more long term utility.

Pinotage

 

[Dausuul]

Or reserach how they could turn their bodies into water? Should you allow that? How would you explain it in game mechanics? I would noy buy any "Well, uh, it's kind of unique magic thing..."-type of stuff from my DM.

*shrug* As DM, my out-of-character response is going to be, "Is it really important to you that your character be able to do this? If so, let's sit down and figure out what's going to be required. Otherwise, accept that it's not something your character has access to, and let's move on."

My in-character response, if you insist on knowing why you can't just have the ability for the asking, is going to be, "That guy spent twenty years studying and mastering the sacred disciplines of Water in order to learn that trick. You want to study for twenty years, you can do it too. Oh, and don't forget finding someone to teach you. I'll see your character four campaigns from now."