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

[AllisterH]

The thing is, we will only get about 120 different "species" of monsters... (much less if we have many animals and vermin)

1. 120 unique species by itself should more than suffice for an entire year of campaigning.

2. Where are people getting 120 monsters from?

Kobolds, orcs, gnoll and other classic <2HD humanoid enemies will probably get 4-5 entries per page. The vast majority of the monsters though will get only 2 if the MM preview pages are anything to go on.

 

[hong]

What I'm trying to say that because different beings operate by different rules it's probably going to feel a lot more intimidating for new DMs to find their own style and balance with these rules than in 3E. For you and me slapping a penalty or improvising a rule may come naturally -- it doesn't for everyone, and I even know some experienced DMs who absolutely hate it.

Stop it. Different beings operate by exactly the same rules. If you want to attack, you roll d20 and add your attack bonus. If you deal damage, you roll the dice indicated for your weapon. If you want to move, you count off however many squares as needed, according to the movement rules. This has been the case for ever, and is not going to change.

That different beings happen to to built using different frameworks is an entirely separate issue, and one that new DMs are not going to worry about.

The mechanics exist for a reason, especially in a highly *gamist* and rules-heavy system like D&D. Therefore it's a valid concern that you should be able to describe in game mechanics pretty much any phenomenon, ability or spell that exists within the setting. Otherwise, what's the point in having the rules in the first place? You could just as well be doing free-form storytelling.

Please. You should be able to describe in game mechanics any phenomenon that is LIKELY to appear in the game. Different people ascribe different limits to what they consider likely, but a ruleset that can handle every conceivable occurrence without manual DM intervention does not exist. Conflating this with "free-form storytelling" is nonsensical.

 

[D'karr]

What I'm trying to say that because different beings operate by different rules it's probably going to feel a lot more intimidating for new DMs to find their own style and balance with these rules than in 3E. For you and me slapping a penalty or improvising a rule may come naturally -- it doesn't for everyone, and I even know some experienced DMs who absolutely hate it.

Unfortunately having a laundry list of rules doesn't help there either. It simply causes more hesitation because now the unexperienced DM feels like if he doesn't have a rule for everything he can't adjudicate anything outside of those rules. Besides the add bonuses/penalties rule is part of the rules as written now and it covers an immense amount of ground, without being restrictive.

The mechanics exist for a reason, especially in a highly *gamist* and rules-heavy system like D&D. Therefore it's a valid concern that you should be able to describe in game mechanics pretty much any phenomenon, ability or spell that exists within the setting. Otherwise, what's the point in having the rules in the first place? You could just as well be doing free-form storytelling.

Describe what and when? I don't stop a game in the middle of it to have a dissertation about the mechanics of why a particular monster, that the characters might or might never have met before, has a specific power and whether they can train to have the same power. For all intents, the players are not monsters so the simple answer is no, and the more detailed answer was succinctly put by somebody up thread (you want to train for 20 years, good I'll see your character in 4-5 campaigns) That gamist mentality is the reason 3e tried to have a rule for every case, and it was not very good at it.

So you would laugh at the player and yet you'd at the same time happily create beings that have abilities which exist outside the game mechanics?

I might laugh at a player that somehow demands all the answers that his character obviously does not have. They want to find answers about a creatures powers, they can attempt to find them in game, not outside.

Hmmm... besides, you sound a bit too elitist with your last comment -- it's not just about adjudicating, because your rulings should be, in some shape or form, be based on the rules. If you constantly throw people with magical unique abilities that the PCs could/should never learn, how can you adjudicate fairly?

Maybe cause I attempt to temper my rulings within the spirit of the rules, but I don't feel like I need to wear a rules straight jacket to accomplish that. In addition those rules usually permit monsters to do certain things that PC's simply can't do. So what is there to adjudicate unfairly?

I can explain the "magical unique abilities" in multiple ways that prevent the players from having them. For example if the players in my group battled a creature with a supernatural ability, let's say a gaze attack that kills instantly on a failed save, should I let them have it simply because if I don't they are somehow less privileged than the creature? The simple answer is no, and I don't feel in anyway obligated to have a 30 minute or more rules argument on the validity of that ruling with the player asking to have the same power. If that would be considered elitist then I'll wear the shoe proudly.

 

[Pinotage]

Do you really think the only purpose of an MM entry is "a base creature that can be modified"?

No. I never said anything like that. But if you're talking getting the most utility and use over x years from a MM, then yes, designing it with base creatures is the best approach, IMO.

Pinotage

 

[Pinotage]

Sure, if I'd statted them as having 5 or 6 levels, I could've larded 'em up with weird feats and unique equipment to make them truly distinct, but they're freaking Goblins. I wanted them to be low-level threats.

4E promises that "archers" will look different from "infantry" in a way that I find more interesting than just a few points to hit one way or the other, and it promises that this difference will happen at a relatively low level. It also promises to make "Goblins" more mechanically different from "Kobolds."

You have to remember as well that the power level for 1st level characters in 4e is higher than in 3e. Meaning that that Level 2 Soldier Kobold Dragon Shield is not the equivalent in power terms of a Rogue 1/Fighter 1 Kobold in 3e. If you scaled 3e to the right power levels, I suspect you'd get the difference in role that you're after. So, yes, I still maintain that all those 4e kobolds are nothing else than 3e kobolds with class levels and feats. And just to point out once again, yes, 3e monster design is more cumbersome than 4e, but that's not the point.

Pinotage

 

[Primal]

Stop it. Different beings operate by exactly the same rules. If you want to attack, you roll d20 and add your attack bonus. If you deal damage, you roll the dice indicated for your weapon. If you want to move, you count off however many squares as needed, according to the movement rules. This has been the case for ever, and is not going to change.

That different beings happen to to built using different frameworks is an entirely separate issue, and one that new DMs are not going to worry about.

But they don't, because some beings are created and operate explicitly under the core rules, while some use a "hybrid" system which also involves freely defined "unique" abilities. It's not just about using a dífferent framework. Let's say that a PC wants to use some equipment tied to monster abilities -- how would you rule that? Using those Kobold Slingers as an example, how would their unique "attack" ability work if a PC picks some of their ammunition? That is definitely a case of one "category" of beings trying to use a mechanical ability that operates a bit differently from how their abilities work.

Please. You should be able to describe in game mechanics any phenomenon that is LIKELY to appear in the game. Different people ascribe different limits to what they consider likely, but a ruleset that can handle every conceivable occurrence without manual DM intervention does not exist. Conflating this with "free-form storytelling" is nonsensical.

You're correct -- I should have clarified that I indeed meant a phenomenon that is likely to appear in the game. I did not mean, however, that the rules should cover *everything* -- I meant that you, as DM, should be able to mechanically define and "stat" anything that appears in the game. If this guy's body turns to water, how does it mechanically work and is it from the arcane or divine power source? Does it register as magical? Could it be a ritual, if any of the PCs want to create a spell to emulate the ability?

My reference to free-form storytelling was meant in the sense that if you don't use a consistent and logical rules set, it might be more fair and easier on everyone to play without the rules. IMO a gamist system that relies heavily on exception-based mechanics only because it's more "cool" would work better as a narrativist system. To me it just feels awkward that 4E relies a lot on case-by-case DM adjudication and improvisation -- especially as the core of the game is very "crunchy".

 

[hong]

But they don't, because some beings are created and operate explicitly under the core rules, while some use a "hybrid" system which also involves freely defined "unique" abilities. It's not just about using a dífferent framework. Let's say that a PC wants to use some equipment tied to monster abilities -- how would you rule that?

Then he can play a monster. Whoops, that option isn't in the rules. Oh well. Back to killing the monsters and taking their stuff, as opposed to trying to be a monster!

Using those Kobold Slingers as an example, how would their unique "attack" ability work if a PC picks some of their ammunition?

It doesn't work. Why, I hear you ask. Because that isn't an activity I'm particularly interested in catering for as DM, just the same as I'm not interested in catering for players who like backstabbing each other.

That is definitely a case of one "category" of beings trying to use a mechanical ability that operates a bit differently from how their abilities work.

Which has no bearing on how easy the game is to DM.

You're correct -- I should have clarified that I indeed meant a phenomenon that is likely to appear in the game. I did not mean, however, that the rules should cover *everything* -- I meant that you, as DM, should be able to mechanically define and "stat" anything that appears in the game.

Nonsense. Being confident in one's ability to handle unanticipated situations has precious little to do with having mechanical support, especially if that involves having to stat things up beforehand.

If this guy's body turns to water, how does it mechanically work and is it from the arcane or divine power source?

Who cares?

Does it register as magical?

Who cares?

Could it be a ritual, if any of the PCs want to create a spell to emulate the ability?

What the PCs need to do to emulate the ability has nothing to do with the ability itself.

My reference to free-form storytelling was meant in the sense that if you don't use a consistent and logical rules set, it might be more fair and easier on everyone to play without the rules. IMO a gamist system that relies heavily on exception-based mechanics only because it's more "cool" would work better as a narrativist system.

Contrary to popular belief, the purpose of the rules is not just to act as a backup system for improvisation.

To me it just feels awkward that 4E relies a lot on case-by-case DM adjudication and improvisation -- especially as the core of the game is very "crunchy".

This is because you are thinking too hard about fantasy. Stop thinking.

 

[hong]

No. I never said anything like that. But if you're talking getting the most utility and use over x years from a MM, then yes, designing it with base creatures is the best approach, IMO.

Pinotage

Ah, so now we're talking about x years. In that case, if there's one thing D&D will not have a shortage of, it's 1e6 monster books covering every reasonable niche and quite a few unreasonable ones.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Using those Kobold Slingers as an example, how would their unique "attack" ability work if a PC picks some of their ammunition?

It doesn't work. Why, I hear you ask. Because that isn't an activity I'm particularly interested in catering for as DM, just the same as I'm not interested in catering for players who like backstabbing each other.

Killing monsters and taking their stuff isn't an activity your D&D game will cater to?

That's an indefensible position. The #1 thing that D&D is supposed to cater to is the absolutely natural and expected activity of picking up stink-bomb and sticky-bomb ammo off the kobolds you just killed, and using it to kill more kobolds. Rules that support this kind of play have the effect of pleasing both gamist and simulationist desires at the same time.

I'm assuming that the driving needs of contrarian peacocking are getting in the way of your common sense here.

 

[Lizard]

Killing monsters and taking their stuff isn't an activity your D&D game will cater to?

That's an indefensible position. The #1 thing that D&D is supposed to cater to is the absolutely natural and expected activity of picking up stink-bomb and sticky-bomb ammo off the kobolds you just killed, and using it to kill more kobolds. Rules that support this kind of play have the effect of pleasing both gamist and simulationist desires at the same time.

I'm assuming that the driving needs of contrarian peacocking are getting in the way of your common sense here.

Note that 3e had extensive and explicit rules about what to do with PCs grabbed Kuo-Toa sticky shields.