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

[The Little Raven]

It takes no imagination to think that the 4e monster manuals might be filled with literally dozens of variations on each racial or monster theme.

You're right. It takes no imagination to think they might be filled with multiple variations/levels of the same monster type, since that's exactly what they told us they were going to do.

Just amazing design.

Agreed. That's why they make the big bucks.

 

[GnomeWorks]

You're right. It takes no imagination to think they might be filled with multiple variations/levels of the same monster type, since that's exactly what they told us they were going to do.

I don't know about you, but I can see why someone would be irritated by this. More varieties of a monster means there is less room for other, possibly more interesting and varied critters.

It's a trade-off. Either they increase the number of variations of more "common" creatures, which gives variety in lower-level encounters (which is one of the goals with doing this, I imagine), or have a wide variety of individual creatures, but make the encounters with said creatures more bland (all hobgoblins are pretty much the same, in 3.5, unless the DM takes the time to make them all different, which is rather time-consuming).

I think the approach to monster design in 4e is just as valid as the one taken in 3.5. Different, certainly, and better for some approaches to the game, but weaker for others. While I personally rather enjoy what they've done (so long as monster design is relatively simple, I can come up with my own critters), but I can see why someone would be irritated with the new direction (making up new critters wholecloth can be just as time-consuming as applying class levels and templates to the more "boring" low-level monsters).

 

[keterys]

Due to spacing, art, and 'fluff', you wouldn't be trading just 1 variation for a new monster. Not only would be sacrificing the 'one monster per page' to make it fit, you'd also be doing things like '4 varieties of gnoll for 2 types of gnoll and 1 type of gnumsh

Whatever a gnumsh is

 

[Lizard]

Indeed it is.

Varied and unexpected encounters without requiring dozens of superfluous monsters who differ only in minor details.

And since you only have to print the 'fluff' once, many more monsters can fit in a single book---which is a huge benefit for this consumer.

Better still is a 'stock' humanoid for each type of critter, and a huge list of plug-in-powers divided by role/level (3rd level brute, 1st level controller), and the DM can play Monster Lego, combining a base creature with different powers/abilities as he sees fit. In other words, why not an Orc Picador or a Zombie Strangler?

 

[Dausuul]

Not to mention I, personally, prefer avoiding "Monster-of-the-Week" (or also "Look at what whacky monster alliance you're encountering this time!") type gameplay, so keeping goblins/kobolds/whatever interesting suits me fine.

This.

If I'm running a scenario that involves defeating an orc warlord, that ought to entail fights with orcs. Lots of fights with orcs. There's only so many weird random "guard monsters" I can throw in before it gets silly. Having a lot of variants on the "orc" theme will allow me to create interesting and exciting battles with just orcs, that don't degenerate into "Now you get to fight SIX first-level orc warriors! And there's, uh... spikes! On... the floor! Difficult terrain, yeah, now isn't that exciting?"

(Or, alternatively, spending half an hour statting up a 5th-level orcish warblade who will get demolished inside of ten minutes.)

As for the names? Yeah, a lot of them kinda suck, and they do have a CCG sound (specifically, a Magic: The Gathering sound), but WotC has never been good with names. That's okay, the players aren't going to know most of the names anyhow. They'll just see "the big goblin with the harpoon."

Better still is a 'stock' humanoid for each type of critter, and a huge list of plug-in-powers divided by role/level (3rd level brute, 1st level controller), and the DM can play Monster Lego, combining a base creature with different powers/abilities as he sees fit. In other words, why not an Orc Picador or a Zombie Strangler?

The problem is that you're still flipping back and forth in the book to do that; you're still statting things out instead of just opening to page X of the Monster Manual and running what's there.

A lot of the time, as a DM, I need to whip up a fight on the fly, since it is the nature of PCs to go places you didn't expect them to go and pick fights with things you never thought they'd even meet. I don't want to have to sit down and stat something out when I've got four players waiting impatiently to kick some ass.

And if I do feel impelled to stat up an Orc Picador, I doubt it will be hard; take the Goblin Picador's ability and slap it on an orc. Or heck, just take a Goblin Picador and put him in an orc suit. I don't really need rules for that. I'd rather have the monsters pre-statted for me, and I can deconstruct and re-build as I need to.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Call me sick, but i'm really curious what abilities an Elven Butt Scratcher might have...

It's not his butt-- nor his finger.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Better still is a 'stock' humanoid for each type of critter, and a huge list of plug-in-powers divided by role/level (3rd level brute, 1st level controller), and the DM can play Monster Lego, combining a base creature with different powers/abilities as he sees fit. In other words, why not an Orc Picador or a Zombie Strangler?

No. I would say that would be much worse than what we are getting. That set-up means you can't run anything straight out of the book, which can be a really big problem. Also, the current set-up, combined with 4E exception based monster design, means that you can pretty easily reverse engineer what you want out of the examples given, so it really is the best compromise between flexibility and customizability that I can think of.

 

[The Little Raven]

Better still is a 'stock' humanoid for each type of critter, and a huge list of plug-in-powers divided by role/level (3rd level brute, 1st level controller), and the DM can play Monster Lego, combining a base creature with different powers/abilities as he sees fit.

So, no ready-to-play monsters? No thanks.

In other words, why not an Orc Picador or a Zombie Strangler?

Because of thematic focuses for particular monster types and the inability to publish every conceivable concept in a single book?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

As for the names? Yeah, a lot of them kinda suck, and they do have a CCG sound (specifically, a Magic: The Gathering sound), but WotC has never been good with names. That's okay, the players aren't going to know most of the names anyhow. They'll just see "the big goblin with the harpoon."

Maybe they need a professional writer. Or just a lot less things to name. I mean, I find it sometimes difficult to come up with names for my NPCs or Cities or whatever. (I might not be paid for it, but I still feel some sympathy for WotC here.). Especially with the fact that they now stat up different "flavours" of the same monster, it seems very hard to come up with new names. Sure, you can always just take some syllables and add an apostrophe somewhere, but...

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't mind having a dozen ready-to-play varients of every creature.

I don't mind having a base creature with a bunch of types and templates to apply.

It's all good...why does it have to be either/or?