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

[mearls]

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

That wasn't the case. As a guy who has the job of looking to feedback to shape what we do, the response was not "No custom monsters." The response was "No custom monsters that we could just do ourselves."

In MMIV, the classes monsters were just that, critters with levels.

In MMV, the monsters had classes, or were advanced versions of base monsters, and had feats and special abilities unique to that entry.

People did not like the MMIV approach. OTOH, people liked the MMV approach.

In any event, 4e offers the same level as customization as 3e, so it's a pointless argument. If you liked making goblin rogues and troll fighters, you can still do that.

However, it is worth pointing out that having a complete array of humanoids in different roles dramatically reduces the time needed to create an adventure. I've also noted that, as a DM, I find myself more and more often forgoing class-based NPCs for exceptions based ones.

For instance, in my ToEE game, I wanted a half-orc assassin. My first impulse was to stat him up as a rogue, but I ended up making him a servant of the water temple, gave him all sorts of water-based attacks (he turns into a water form to sneak into places; he kills by grabbing his quarry and generating water in the victim's throat and lungs to drown them; etc.) and building him as a monster rather than a levelled NPC.

I'll be curious to see which method DMs are using a year after the game's release.

 

[Khur]

Here's my concern... <snip>

I'm keen on the idea of having a base race statted out, with blocks of modified stats (shortened to reduce repetitious info) ready-made for DMs to toss into their game. Wouldn't that be best of both worlds?

The fact that they haven't moved towards this makes me feel it's gravitating towards a more simple "video game" feel, rather than living world feel like I've had with 3e.

We haven't moved toward this; we moved in. Put simply: Gnome as monster? Check. Gnome as PC race? Check.

[/end addressing your quote and moving on to a general comment]

I've use the abilities of one monster in the MM to change the way another works. I've also just said, "This elf here in the MM—I'll call him human in this encounter, take away his elf ability, and give him a human one." Takes almost as long to type that as it does to do it.

But I'm pretty good at customizing and tinkering with the game. I'm sure many of those who complain about "specific monsters" are too. I'd hate to think we expect every new DM to be up to that standard right out of the gate. It takes time to become familiar enough with the game to be able to tinker effectively, and that was true in earlier editions.

I'd also hate to think we'd expect everyone to have the time to tinker. Heck, I don't even have that sort of time nowadays. And I want to play.

 

[Lackhand]

Wow. Devsigned.

Complain quieter, guys! we're attracting their dread eyes! who knows what shall remain behind when they're done making informed input!

On behalf of the bepuzzled denizens of EN World, thanks for dropping in. Now publish and start selling those damn books!

 

[zoroaster100]

Having different version of each humanoid monster that fulfill different roles and which are precreated in the Monster Manual without adding class levels is a huge plus for me, and I'm very excited about it.

 

[Primal]

The 4e Kobold entry is more versatile than it's 3e counterpart.

I may have been capable of hand customizing the 3e Kobold from it's boring default settings into an interesting challenge. I simply lacked the desire to do so.

I disagree -- as some posters have pointed out, you can "tinker" pretty much anything you want out of 3E Kobolds. In 4E, you only have a group of different "types" with unique/exceptional "special abilities" that may vastly differ (without any logic, seemingly) from other creatures of the same species. So you can drop Kobold Stonehurlers, Kobold Sneakthieves and Kobold Fireblasters out of the book, but to design your own "variants" you still need to tinker with them. And no matter what you do with them, they're truly "one-trick ponies". In my opinion 3E monster building was more coherent and logical. Yes, maybe it was more complex and time-consuming than in 4E, but definitely 3E offered more options and versatility than 4E.

 

[fafhrd]

And no matter what you do with them, they're truly "one-trick ponies". In my opinion 3E monster building was more coherent and logical. Yes, maybe it was more complex and time-consuming than in 4E, but definitely 3E offered more options and versatility than 4E.

For instance, in my ToEE game, I wanted a half-orc assassin. My first impulse was to stat him up as a rogue, but I ended up making him a servant of the water temple, gave him all sorts of water-based attacks (he turns into a water form to sneak into places; he kills by grabbing his quarry and generating water in the victim's throat and lungs to drown them; etc.) and building him as a monster rather than a levelled NPC.

Uhuh.

 

[hong]

I disagree -- as some posters have pointed out, you can "tinker" pretty much anything you want out of 3E Kobolds.

Contrary to popular belief, the WotC ninjae are not going to take you away if you also tinker the hell out of 4E kobolds.

In my opinion 3E monster building was more coherent and logical. Yes, maybe it was more complex and time-consuming than in 4E, but definitely 3E offered more options and versatility than 4E.

3E offers options and versatility as constrained by a rigid build framework. 4E loosens that framework. The options and versatility remain.

 

[hong]

Uhuh.

You are fighting a zeitgeist, and these things are damnedly difficult to kill.

 

[fafhrd]

You are fighting a zeitgeist, and these things are damnedly difficult to kill.

I just have to endure until the spirit of the age turns. Fortunately, I believe it's slated for June.

 

[StarFyre]

sadly

it is much easier to stat 1 creature and do quick modifications (even if they don;t follow all the rules..such as skill pts, etc since most of that doesn't matter in a battle anyways) to them, than it is to create totally unique, well made creatures..

I am very sad that they resorted to 10 variations of gnolls, etc.

1 or 2 is enough with some bullet points on methods to vary them..ie. a few spell powers, shaman type powers, enhanced combat powers, etc to vary them.

Sanjay