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

[Primal]

It might not be easier for you to run, but I feel it will be easier for people like me to run. I don't want or need a game system to provide answers for every situation that I might come across. What I want is material that functions for its given purpose most of the time and a suite of tools to use when I need to go beyond the rules of the game. This is a fundamental difference we seem to have.

I contend that it is impossible for a game system to completely remove GM judgment from the equation. After all elements like encounter design, creature design, adversary ability use, and situations that require stepping outside the bounds of the rules will always require the exercise of judgment. When you attempt to remove the GM from the equation in this manner and tell GMs to just trust the system without explaining why things are set up in the manner they are you basically tie the GM's hands to the system. I've seen many 3e GMs who feel like their hands are pretty much tied when they can't find an answer in the rules or get frustrated because they put too much trust in the encounter design guidelines that 3e provides (usually due to unrevealed assumptions inherit in 3e's encounter design guidelines). They never improve in their ability to exercise judgment because they don't make judgment calls often enough.

It's pretty evident that our DMing styles differ greatly, and you're probably correct about 4E giving more tools to DM who like to make judgement calls case-by-case and tinker freely with monsters and NPCs without being "tied down" by the rules. I personally feel it's too much work in D&D, especially as I've become pretty adept with how things work in 3E and I've had to do my share of judgement calls and houseruling when we were playing AD&D. I've had no trouble creating, running or adjusting encounters in 3E and I think I intuitively know how to do that by now.

I disagree -- it's possible to remove GM and GM judgement from the equation, but not just in gamist systems. Polaris, Universalis and Breaking the Ice serve as good examples of narrativist games that do not have GMs. It's just that thematically and mechanically they're so very different from D&D and other gamist RPGs.

Why have rules then you ask ? Because this isn't a binary issue. You can provide support to make judgment calls easier to make without overloading a GM's plate with a multitude of general rules that can serve to intimidate GMs. You can also ease GMs by starting them off with smaller less important judgment calls. You can also cover typical situations so that new GMs don't have to constantly make judgment calls.

I think that what I've seen of 4E so far, it reminds me in some ways of how Dragonlance SAGA was written -- a lot of options and skills and guidelines how to apply them in various situations. I liked the system, but sometimes felt overloaded and intimidated by the sheer amount of judgement calls I had to make during a session. And therefore I prefer more "rigid" and consistent mechanics when running D&D or other games that employ a similar mindset. I feel that it makes DMing a lot easier if the rules cover most situations you might run across or if the mechanics are so well-designed that it's easy to adapt them into any situation that the rules don't cover.

Don't get me wrong -- I really like rules-light games, but I just don't think all this exception-based stuff works well in D&D. If we were talking about some of the indie RPGs instead of D&D, I would agree with you.

The major differences here are that monster abilities are now clearly defined in each monster's statblock and that martial training can actually result in a monster performing stunts that might not be described in the general body of rules. Monster abilities being defined in each monster's statblock eliminates the need for cross referencing and makes applying exceptions to the general far easier since you no longer have to parse out 'like x but not in y specific ways' passages. You can see this in the differing implementations of Pack Tactics in the Gnoll entry. The martial abilities of various monsters are (like a fighter or ranger's class powers the result of dedicated training. With this training they can learn to do some pretty nifty stuff. I realize that D&D has a long hallowed tradition of not letting martially oriented characters do cool stuff so I can see how cognitive dissonance might settle in. The key element of this exception based approach is that you don't need to limit your design space to martial effects already predefined in the rules. You can come up with new stuff that only applies if certain monsters or class powers come into play. If you don't want to deal with a certain class of exceptions in play you don't have to. Just don't use the relevent class powers and monsters.

Don't you think you're contradicting yourself when you say that "you no longer have to parse out 'like x but not in y specific ways' passages"? Because isn't that just what the exception-based monster design is about? You have your Kobold Slingers who might share an ability ('Shifty') with the other Kobolds, but the rest of their powers are completely unique and very different from, say, Kobold Pigriders. Also, the different "variations" of the same power, such as the Pack Tactics, would make me constantly refer between the stat blocks to see how it works for each Gnoll variant. And in my opinion that makes it all the harder to run an encounter than using classes for those Gnolls in 3E (because their powers and feats are pretty easy to remember after running the game for years). So far I haven't seen any indication that MM would have any 'classes of exceptions' but rather it seems that almost every variant will have pretty much unique abilities. I hope that I'm wrong, though, because it makes the game so much harder to run for DMs like me.

It is entirely reasonable for a character to learn how to do these things (by investing resources i.e. powers towards that goal) or to attempt things outside of their predefined abilities. However, that is not the point of a Monster Manual. That is the point of player supplements and GM initiative. This is what I was talking about above when I talked about smaller scale judgments calls. Situations like this can serve as a means to teach new GMs how to make judgment calls. We shouldn't expect all such calls to be perfect of course, and GMs may have to reverse course on previous rulings. That's okay. We shouldn't expect perfection, but if we provide GMs with the proper tools and give them some guidance on how to handle these situations without necessarily providing them with an answer (the right answer might depend on the game in question) they should learn to flex their creative muscles and get better over time. It is important that we place trust in GMs without leaving them in the dark.

I don't know -- I would hate to make such a judgement call about a stunt/power without any proper mechanical reference, and I consider myself to be a pretty experienced DM. An unexperienced DM would probably see this as a major call, in my opinion. Note that it takes time to get comfortable and confident with a new rules set, and I'd hate to make such calls during my first session -- no matter how good the tool set or guidelines are. But maybe that's just me?

I've addressed this somewhat above, but I think your failing to consider that PCs also are capable of doing a number of things that monsters cannot without additional training. Players will have plenty of oppurtunities to get their special on. Exception based design applies just as much to character classes as it does to monsters.

In 3E every being (except some monsters) was mechanically treated exactly in the same way and pretty much had the access to the same pool of resources and abilities. In 4E this isn't so, and I'm very well aware that the PCs are supposed to be "special" while the monsters and NPCs are apparently supposed to live in "freeze frame" until they're triggered to "life" by the proximity of the PCs (i.e. they get their "5 rounds of fame"). Sarcasm aside, perhaps you misunderstood my point, because I definitely dislike this division of beings into two different "categories", and absolutely loved how everyone played by the same rules in 3E. And that's how I'd want it to be in 4E, too -- whether I'm creating a PC or statting an NPC or a monster, the process and options would work exactly the same way for everyone.

Why are supernatural abilities so different ? Should a wizard not be able to attempt to perform supernatural feats he has seen without learning a new ability by tapping into his resoirvoir of mystical power and experimenting ? Isn't that how new spells are discovered ? Why should supernatural ability be the only way to perform something extraordinary? Why is exception based design fine for some classes of ability, but not others?

You misread the sentence. I actually said that "supernatural abilities of *some* monsters" -- *not* "all supernatural abilities". Of course wizards, too, should be able to research new spells or pick feats/talents they've witnessed in action.

 

[ptolemy18]

Well, this MM will have over 500 monsters, so some overlap doesn't bother me.

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.

All you have to do in 3.x to keep monsters interesting is just give 'em some classes. Piece of cake... although admittedly, using monsters fresh out of the book is easier for novice DMs. Seems like another way in which 4E is targeted towards newbie D&D players... which I can totally understand, although as a longtime D&D player, I enjoy the staggeringly complicated & fun options of 3E myself.

 

[catsclaw]

All you have to do in 3.x to keep monsters interesting is just give 'em some classes. Piece of cake...

Sort of.

The problem is that classes quickly swamp race differences. Whatever minor difference there is between a Gnoll and a Lizardfolk is completely effaced once you make them a Gnoll Rogue 10 and a Lizardfolk Rogue 10. Even two races as different as Ogre and Kobold are going to feel pretty similar once you slap 10 levels of Cleric on them.

Besides which, your players already know how to fight barbarians, and wizards, and rogues. Once a goblin casts Magic Missile, your players will know exactly what its strengths and weaknesses are, and will react appropriately. You can avoid this by choosing odd prestige classes, but then you're suddenly dealing with leveling up a multiclass character, and it's no longer a "piece of cake".

 

[Primal]

You'd be surprised by how many things go poof into thin air, and how many problems it solves.

Evidently. Good for you, bad for your players. I pity them.

Consider the possibility, no matter how remote, that D&D is not meant to be a character-building experience.

And consider the possibility, no matter how remote, that D&D is played by… well, players, who want to create and play interesting and fun characters. Without any players there’ll be no campaign. Now, everyone has their own opinion of what’s interesting and fun, but that is exactly why you should let them have creative input into the nature of the campaign.
And if we take a look at the threads here, quite a few of them seem to concern… yep, character classes and character building. Interesting, isn't it?

Pish tosh. It makes it less complicated to run, because you no longer need to worry about things that only matter to PCs. If you choose to make it more complicated for yourself by worrying about things that don't matter, that's your own lookout.

In *your* opinion, Hong – that’s not a universally recognised fact, is it? Notice how I didn’t state that 4E will be more complicated as a fact, did I? Creating and running NPCs has never been complicated in 3E for me – it happens pretty intuitively and naturally. If I want to stat a ‘non-heroic’ human innkeeper in 3E, at least I don’t need to think about which unique powers I’ll pick for him. Stats, feats and skills are actually very easy to do in 3E – even on the fly.

This is why you are well recommended to stop thinking too hard about fantasy. As has been said before.

And I’ll recommend that you’d start thinking harder about fantasy.

This is why your players are also well recommended to stop thinking too hard about fantasy.

And I’ll recommend that your players should start thinking harder about fantasy. At least my players are interested enough in the game to try to solve such “mystery elements”. Maybe your players are not into fantasy at all?

You do not balance a PC power (not spell; 4E posits other means besides magic by which characters can gain superpowers, and it's about jolly time. The "magic is a license to print money" meme should have been dead and buried years ago.) by reference to what monsters can do. You balance a PC power by reference to what other PC power can do. This is a basic tenet of power design. Whether an NPC of level X can do something is the least important concern as to whether a PC of level X can do the same thing.

But you probably should do, if the original concept comes from an NPC’s power. You look up which level monster/NPC has that power and if there are any similar other powers available to other monsters. That gives you a better perspective to what the PC needs to do and which level power or talent or feat would be appropriate for this power. Then you compare it to other PC powers/talents/feats to address any balancing concerns and to "polish" it off.

Nonsense. That it is implausible in your imagination for narrative empowerment to sit alongside detailed crunchy bits speaks only to the limits of your imagination.

You should read the posts before replying to them, or perhaps you’re intentionally misunderstanding or baiting other posters? Did you notice that I mentioned how Conspiracy of Shadows actually does this and does it well? Generally, it’s not a good idea to try that because you have to have a really good picture of what you want out of the game thematically and mechanically in addition to understanding how the elements should relate to each other in a logical and consistent way. In any case I don’t see how D&D could implement narrativist elements while remaining D&D.

Arguing over the rules is a symptom of thinking too hard about fantasy. The answer, as has been stated before, is to stop thinking.

Really? And all this time I’ve thought it’s rather a symptom of the system encouraging metagaming and competitiveness. My bad.

It is very easy to have a basic level of consistency and sense of realism. You don't even need to think very hard to achieve it. In fact, not thinking too hard is the key to achieving all the consistency you need.

I’m sure that you’re well aware that we all prefer different gaming styles. What you consider the “level of realism needed” may be very different from my opinion. You know, some people don’t bother about anything beyond the next cool power they’ll get and the next time they’ll get to show it. They don’t bother about any sense of realism or consistency at all. And that’s just as fine – like I said, what works for me may not work for you and vice versa, right?

 

[hong]

There's a difference between witnessing a magical power or feat and witnessing a (rather mundane) creature using a (mostly mundane) weapon to great effect.

And what we see here is the root cause of the "magic is a license to print money" meme.

 

[hong]

Evidently. Good for you, bad for your players.

No, good for me, good for my players.

I pity them.

I pity you for thinking that you have to pity them.

And consider the possibility, no matter how remote, that D&D is played by… well, players, who want to create and play interesting and fun characters.

Yes. Who are not kobolds. A player who considers "no kobolds" to be an unacceptable constraint on creativity is always welcome to run their own campaign, where everybody is a kobold.

Without any players there’ll be no campaign. Now, everyone has their own opinion of what’s interesting and fun, but that is exactly why you should let them have creative input into the nature of the campaign.

Point me to where I said players have no creative input to the nature of the campaign.

And if we take a look at the threads here, quite a few of them seem to concern… yep, character classes and character building. Interesting, isn't it?

Yes. Most of whom are not kobolds. Interesting, isn't it?

In *your* opinion, Hong – that’s not a universally recognised fact, is it?

My opinions are universally recognised facts. You can trust me, because I always check my facts before posting nonsense to webforae.

Notice how I didn’t state that 4E will be more complicated as a fact, did I? Creating and running NPCs has never been complicated in 3E for me – it happens pretty intuitively and naturally.

Sure, sure.

If I want to stat a ‘non-heroic’ human innkeeper in 3E, at least I don’t need to think about which unique powers I’ll pick for him. Stats, feats and skills are actually very easy to do in 3E – even on the fly.

Not that anyone was ever talking about "non-heroic human inkeepers".

And I’ll recommend that you’d start thinking harder about fantasy.

You first.

And I’ll recommend that your players should start thinking harder about fantasy.

Them first.

At least my players are interested enough in the game to try to solve such “mystery elements”. Maybe your players are not into fantasy at all?

Maybe your players have misconstrued your game into something almost but not quite totally unlike fantasy.

But you probably should do, if the original concept comes from an NPC’s power.

No, I most definitely should not.

You look up which level monster/NPC has that power and if there are any similar other powers available to other monsters. That gives you a better perspective to what the PC needs to do and which level power or talent or feat would be appropriate for this power.

No, I get a better perspective on what the PC needs to do by looking at what else the PC could do with the chargen resources he would be devoting to it. This has precious little to do with NPC/monster design considerations.

Then you compare it to other PC powers/talents/feats to address any balancing concerns and to "polish" it off.

The only thing you are polishing off is the balance mechanism provided by levels and classes, by approaching power design from the basis of what monsters can do. Whereas what I am polishing is something else entirely.

You should read the posts before replying to them, or perhaps you’re intentionally misunderstanding or baiting other posters? Did you notice that I mentioned how Conspiracy of Shadows actually does this and does it well?

You seem to be confused now.

Generally, it’s not a good idea to try that because you have to have a really good picture of what you want out of the game thematically and mechanically in addition to understanding how the elements should relate to each other in a logical and consistent way.

As I do. And, apparently, as you do not.

In any case I don’t see how D&D could implement narrativist elements while remaining D&D.

This is because you are limited in a failure of your imagination as to what D&D can be.

Really? And all this time I’ve thought it’s rather a symptom of the system encouraging metagaming and competitiveness. My bad.

And metagaming and competitiveness are symptoms of thinking too hard about fantasy. Your bad indeed.

I’m sure that you’re well aware that we all prefer different gaming styles. What you consider the “level of realism needed” may be very different from my opinion. You know, some people don’t bother about anything beyond the next cool power they’ll get and the next time they’ll get to show it.

Or they bother about things other than the mechanics of the next cool power they get. Things like, I don't know, advancing plotlines and character agendae in a cooperative, consensus-driven fashion; exploring inner personality and ethical conflicts; indulging in high-flying antics that entertain the masses and enrage the authorities; and so on. You know, that "narrativism" thing that you seem to consider doesn't work for D&D.

They don’t bother about any sense of realism or consistency at all.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

And that’s just as fine – like I said, what works for me may not work for you and vice versa, right?

Right. Which is why you should stop thinking too hard about fantasy, and then what works for me will also work for you.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Right. Which is why you should stop thinking too hard about fantasy, and then what works for me will also work for you.

Lately I've been wondering if Hong's been replaced by a poorly programmed bot with too few canned lines. Anybody on the boards here seen Hong lately, to verify the WoTC ninjae haven't got him?

 

[Primal]

Lately I've been wondering if Hong's been replaced by a poorly programmed bot with too few canned lines. Anybody on the boards here seen Hong lately, to verify the WoTC ninjae haven't got him?

I'm beginning to suspect the same... does anyone have any visual proof that Hong has not been abducted or brainwashed by WoTC? Maybe he's been replaced by one of The Rouse's dreaded clones?

 

[hong]

I'm beginning to suspect the same... does anyone have any visual proof that Hong has not been abducted or brainwashed by WoTC? Maybe he's been replaced by one of The Rouse's dreaded clones?

Pish tosh. I am WotC's bitch, not WotC's pimp.

 

[Primal]

No, good for me, good for my players.

No, good for you and bad for your players. That is a fact. See, I can throw these nonsensical and irrelevant "facts" around, too.

I pity you for thinking that you have to pity them.

Feel free to do so. It won't change anything -- I still pity your players.

Yes. Who are not kobolds. A player who considers "no kobolds" to be an unacceptable constraint on creativity is always welcome to run their own campaign, where everybody is a kobold.

That was just an example, you know. If all your players want to play kobolds or gnomes or hobgoblins, maybe they think they’d make for fun and interesting characters. Then you should at least talk with them about what they’d want out of such characters and such a campaign and is it really the only character concept they’d consider.

Point me to where I said players have no creative input to the nature of the campaign.

I don’t have to, because I did not imply that you’ve said so. Read that sentence again. I was using the word ‘you’ in the grammatical meaning, not in reference to you.

Yes. Most of whom are not kobolds. Interesting, isn't it?

I only mentioned kobolds as an example, but you seem to a have kobold fetish. It’s not healthy – get rid of it.

My opinions are universally recognised facts. You can trust me, because I always check my facts before posting nonsense to webforae.

Actually, it seems you don’t. But feel free to believe it if it makes you feel better.

Sure, sure.

Glad you don’t disagree. That's the first time, I believe?

Not that anyone was ever talking about "non-heroic human inkeepers".

I thought we were talking about designing NPCs and monsters? You know, *most* NPCs in the setting are ‘non-heroic’ commoners and experts (using 3E terminology) so it’s probably pretty relevant to think about how to stat them (apparently as “monsters” in 4E) because sooner or later the PCs will probably come into conflict with them.

You first.

Been there, done that. Didn’t work. Your turn.

Them first.

They’ve already been there. Your players’ turn.

Maybe your players have misconstrued your game into something almost but not quite totally unlike fantasy.

Come again? You absolutely make no sense to me.

No, I most definitely should not.

See below.

No, I get a better perspective on what the PC needs to do by looking at what else the PC could do with the chargen resources he would be devoting to it. This has precious little to do with NPC/monster design considerations.

The only thing you are polishing off is the balance mechanism provided by levels and classes, by approaching power design from the basis of what monsters can do. Whereas what I am polishing is something else entirely.

Oh, I disagree. First of all, it really depends on what the *player* wants to do with the power. Perhaps his idea is closer to the Wavecrusher Archon’s ‘Body of Drowning Water’ than the assassin’s ‘Watery Body – in that case you *should* refer to the ‘Body of Drowning Water’ power and see what level the Wavecrusher Archon is. Then look at the PC powers of similar levels, the resources the PC is willing to spend (Talent/Feat/Power) and make the final adjustments with the player.

If you’re designing a completely new PC or NPC or monster power, it’d be wise to check if a monster or NPC already has a similar power. That way you keep everyone in relative power balance (which, IMO, *is* important in D&D). I’m sure that you can tinker with the abilities a lot in 4E – my impression is that you can even lower the other attributes to give a monster powers that it could not normally have at its level (one of the designers mentioned this in his blog, I think). However, I don’t see anything exciting in bringing in 6th level monsters with one ultrapowerful ability (for its level) and 20 HP and crappy Defenses.

You seem to be confused now.

No, you seem to be. I think you’re confusing terminology now. I was talking about game mechanics and how they could emphasize a certain style of play. Conspiracy of Shadows is a game that encourages narrativist style while bringing in also elements that are very “crunchy” and gamist.

As I do. And, apparently, as you do not.

Nonsense. Again, your opinion, not a fact. The thing is, if I say that “3E is mechanically what I want out of D&D and supports well enough what I want thematically in a fantasy RPG” you’ll have a hard time proving that I’m “wrong” or don’t know what I want. Sheesh.

This is because you are limited in a failure of your imagination as to what D&D can be.

Can you give an example of mechanical elements from narrativist systems that would work in D&D and make it still feel D&D? Even the designers said that they ended up with many interesting mechanical elements but they didn’t just feel like part of D&D. The trouble is that it's really nigh-impossible to achieve this with a game which has such a long history and so many editions behind it. I'm sure that most players and DMs alike would not like the end result no matter how well you did it.

And metagaming and competitiveness are symptoms of thinking too hard about fantasy. Your bad indeed.

Oh, my. Brother Hong, truly, if only your mouth (and fingers ) could keep up with your feverish brain, I think we would all truly feel blessed!

Or they bother about things other than the mechanics of the next cool power they get. Things like, I don't know, advancing plotlines and character agendae in a cooperative, consensus-driven fashion; exploring inner personality and ethical conflicts; indulging in high-flying antics that entertain the masses and enrage the authorities; and so on. You know, that "narrativism" thing that you seem to consider doesn't work for D&D.

Now you're talking about 'story' and 'character immersion', which are not exclusively limited to "narrativist" play only. You can get the same story through gamist, simulationist and narrativist styles. Of course you can use narrativist style to play D&D -- it just isn't an optimal system for doing that. I was talking about implementing *mechanical* elements from systems that encourage narrativist play into a gamist system like D&D, which is tricky at best. Don't get confused.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

For me, it is. For you, apparently not.

Right. Which is why you should stop thinking too hard about fantasy, and then what works for me will also work for you.

And if you started to think harder about fantasy, what works for me would also work for you.