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

[Fallen Seraph]

I guess it is a difference in gaming styles.

But... I view it likes this:

The things the PCs fight, work with, etc. Don't have to be consistent with some far-away background since that is not the area the PCs are affecting, the World as of that moment in time is that bubble of space around the PCs. Sure there may be a framework of a World around that bubble, but nothing concrete and mechanical exists there.

As such, I simply drag and drop or switch-out and drop in what I need. I need a social-encounter Hobgoblin I switch-out a normal monster Hobgoblin for one that works for that scenario.

And will continue to work for that as long as it is needed, another scenario comes up, with a Hobgoblin social-encounter, do the same thing, hell if I wanted to I could simply take another say Human NPC and just describe as a Hobgoblin.

Consistency only needs to exist as far as the PCs eyes can see.

 

[The Little Raven]

*Conceptually*, there's a problem.

So, it simply comes down to "I want everything to adhere to the exact capabilities of what players can/can't do." Boooooooooring.

Compared to what 4e gnolls, goblinoids, and kobolds do, their 3e versions bore me to frakkin' tears with their lack of anything mechanically interesting.

 

[bramadan]

I think the problem here stems from the fact that DnD4 officially abandons the hitherto assumed (though never stated) idea that the DnD rules are supposed to provide the full simulation of the fantasy world.

Of course this idea was never really cogent but it did not stop it from weighing heavily on the design process, in particular of the DnD3.

So, to answer your question - can your character sneak into warcaster academy and learn their trade - he probably can (given sufficient effort), but he can not do it within the scope of DnD rules.

This seems outrageous to a simulationist player but is really not much different from asking "can I stop fighting monsters for a while and focus my skills and acumen on becoming a successful merchant, getting rich, using that wealth to create power base and hire an army with which to attack the baddies ?"
In principle you can, but seeing as there are no rules for trade, logistics or army combat in DnD, doing so would get you beyond the scope of the DnD game and thus DM will not let you do it (or will make up a new set of rules for you).

DnD always focused on a fairly small subset of things people may want to do and provided a set of mechanics for those. The 4th edition rules make that subset infinitesimally smaller (by stating monsters the way they do) but gain much greater ease of play in exchange.

Actual loss is very small, it is mental hurdle of admitting that DnD is not full set of rules for simulating the world that is hard to jump.

 

[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."

I was talking about MM4, not MM5, but it looks like we agree on that in any case. I believe people thought MM5 was an improvement on MM4.

However, I fail to see the difference between having a single goblin entry in 3e and building an archer, a two-handed weapon wielding brute, a slinger, a scimitar and shield user, etc. (ala MM4) and the 4e approach of just giving you those builds. Isn't 4e just custom monsters that we can do ourselves? Giving something a different role is hardly a differentiating factor that warrants an additional monster.

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.

I wasn't arguing for 3e in this instance. I was indicating that there was an apparant shift in mentally about what appears to be essentially a MM4 style approach in 4e. While having different roles in 4e does reduce preparation time, I'd rather see more monsters than the same one with a different role ala MM4.

Pinotage

 

[Pinotage]

Compared to what 4e gnolls, goblinoids, and kobolds do, their 3e versions bore me to frakkin' tears with their lack of anything mechanically interesting.

I suspect that's because 4e is like the same thing wrapped in different colored paper. Seriously, these 4e creatures do exactly the same things as 3e creatures do. It's just written differently so it looks all nice and shiny. The gnoll huntsmaster is a gnoll with a bow. The gnoll marauder is a gnoll with a spear and mouth full of teeth. The gnoll claw fighter has claws and the Mobility feat. On the other side of the novelty wording, it's the same thing.

Pinotage

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I
Of course, the other problem is that PC classes now come with a LOT of options; adding 2 fighter levels to a 3e orc didn't do much to make running the orc more complex, but from what we've seen, doing that in 4e will make the DMs life a lot harder.

Yes, it probably would be. But that's the general problem - player can and often want to handle a complex character. They need to run only one of them, so complex mechanics are great for them. And they can advance him once per session (at most), and run him over multiple ones.
A DM (at least in 3E) might have to advance a level X monster to level Y with class levels, and often runs them only one or two combats. Complex classes are hell for him.

And that's why 4E seems to move away from statting monsters as PCs. Anything else means you have to compromise between complexity as acceptable for the DM and complexity as required for a player. Off course, we're now compromising on something else, the simulationist aspect of the mechanics are sacrificed for the playability/usability of the mechanics.

That's unfortunate, but there seems to be no way out. Something is always sacrificed.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I suspect that's because 4e is like the same thing wrapped in different colored paper. Seriously, these 4e creatures do exactly the same things as 3e creatures do. It's just written differently so it looks all nice and shiny. The gnoll huntsmaster is a gnoll with a bow. The gnoll marauder is a gnoll with a spear and mouth full of teeth. The gnoll claw fighter has claws and the Mobility feat. On the other side of the novelty wording, it's the same thing.

Pinotage

The end result is similar, but the process that got you there is different. And that is, from a playability point of view, what makes the important difference.

 

[catsclaw]

You see, it is that 'it' part that I find rather lame. The notion that there are Goblin Warcasters about as a class of presumably numerous identical beings is lame to me whatever you call them.

Well, yes, if you hand-craft every NPC to be their own precious little snowflake, I can see how that would be a lot of work.

That's not exactly a problem restricted to 4e, though--it's not like the 3.5 MM has anything but a single kobold to use. The developers have said you'll be perfectly able to level up monsters with class levels the way you can in 3.5, so if anything 4e has more flexibility, not less.

I on the other hand think the entire new design paradigm makes things harder on me, increases my prep time, makes it harder for me to DM, and so forth.

I'm having trouble wrapping my head around this. You want unique monsters. In 4e it will be easier to make unique monsters. And that makes your life harder?

 

[Bagpuss]

Well, this MM will have over 500 monsters.

Are we sure it doesn't actually have 50 with 10 varieties of each entry or some similar mix.

To me Elf Archer and Elf Wardancer are not two monsters they are one.

 

[Wormwood]

Consistency only needs to exist as far as the PCs eyes can see.

So much truth in one simple statement.