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

[Pinotage]

I seem to remember not so long ago that people were moaning and complaining about having classed monsters in MM4, and now apparantly the same things is being applauded for 4e with classes being replaced by roles. Weird.

Pinotage

 

[Wormwood]

Often I find that what some folks here think of as hackneyed and lame is evocative and cool.

Exactly this.

 

[Wormwood]

My point. Which is more useful:
6 goblin specialists+6 orc specialist
1 goblin base, 1 orc base, 12 cool powers to use as you see fit.

I'd rather have both: pregen creatures in the front of the book, a nice appendix of powers in the back.

Barring that? Give me numerous pre-written monsters. That way, I can tinker with them if I have the time and inclination, but I'm not *forced* to do so.

 

[Wormwood]

I seem to remember not so long ago that people were moaning and complaining about having classed monsters in MM4, and now apparantly the same things is being applauded for 4e with classes being replaced by roles. Weird.

I bet they's not the same complainers.

I *loved* the classed MM monsters. Real time savers (necessitated by the crushing time-sink giving class levels to monsters actually was).

 

[Primal]

It is very awesome.

Check it out:

Gnoll - Clawfighter, Demonic Scourge, Huntmaster, Marauder
These names invoke ideas of beastial fighters.

Hobgoblin - Archer, Warcaster, Soldier
Hobbies are bred for war. You can bet fighting a hobgoblin is quite different than fighting a gnoll.

Human - Bandit, Mage, Berserker, Guard
All walks of life, humans encompass all kinds of professions.

Flavorful monsters with unique abilities that play differently than other monsters, even of the same level. Beautiful. Because you're almost always going to be fighting multiple opponents, how boring would it be if the MM only included one kobold entry or one gnoll entry? Every gnoll encounter would be the same unless the DM statted out a special monster with levels or by giving abilities. And, we all know one of the primary goals of 4e was to lessen the amount of work for DMs. They're succeeding with spades!

So, yes, I agree! This is some of the best news for monsters we've seen, proving that WotC is getting done what was needed. Proving that they've got the stuff.

I wonder if 5E will remove *all* DMing chores from DMs? You know, the game would run itself and you could play, too...

I beg to differ here -- I fail to see how this is any different from statting monsters in 3E, because every time you want to create an "exceptional" monster (e.g. a Hobgoblin Shieldbasher) or a "new" monster "variant", you need to work out its "unique" abilities. I see that actually being more of a headache than applying character levels to monsters -- *especially* if you need a lot of "types" such as when you're creating an army of monsters (which is what ThirdWizard complained about).

I've heard many pro-4E posters claiming that characters and monsters were "one-trick" ponies in 3E, but in the light of what I've seen of 4E monsters I wonder if they still think that way. I mean, every monster has one or two possible "attack powers" and tactics available and that's it -- those Kobold Warslingers (?) had only some weird ammunition and no melee attacks (IIRC) at all. Once the group engages them, it's over. The same with the Pit Fiend -- if the wizard uses 'Resistance' on the group's fighter, the Pit Fiend can't touch him. Do you really see this as evolution in monster design?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I think nostalgia plays a bigger role than anyone cares to admit.

Or recognizes.

 

[Wormwood]

I wonder if 5E will remove *all* DMing chores from DMs? You know, the game would run itself and you could play, too...

I don't know about running itself, but I sure as hell could do with a few less "chores".

 

[Wormwood]

I've heard many pro-4E posters claiming that characters and monsters were "one-trick" ponies in 3E, but in the light of what I've seen of 4E monsters I wonder if they still think that way.

Really? I'm as f4nboy as they come, and I've never complained about 'one trick ponies'

In fact, streamlining and focusing monsters is one of my top three raves about 4e.

 

[Lackhand]

My point. Which is more useful:
6 goblin specialists+6 orc specialist
1 goblin base, 1 orc base, 12 cool powers to use as you see fit.

Sorry, I'm a lazy DM -- I like the 6+6 option more than the 1,1,:12 option, too.
I really liked the Astral Construct spells powers as a player, but as a DM I'd rather cheat completely than use them as written. I just have too much else on my plate to care.

 

[D'karr]

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?

I don't know but wasn't that they way that most dragons in the MM were displayed? That sucked goats big time... IMHO of course.