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

[Kishin]

I think the draw for me is that the specialized variations generally play differently and more interestingly than 3E class levelled up humanoids. A Gnoll clawfighter definitely has more mechanical and tactical appeal to me than slapping a gnoll with barbarian levels, 90% of the time resulting in just a generic 'rush in and beat face' monster with comparatively little depth. Assigning class levels to humanoids at higher levels is a fairly arduous process, and I say this as someone who loves to tinker with monsters and encounter design. I'm not going to fault WoTC for giving me more tools to play with, more examples to build from, and most importantly, for taking the leash off the proverbial dog with exception based design.

Also, 4e customization and design looks pretty intuitive and user friendly, considering the number of custom monsters we've seen pop up on these boards already without the MM proper being available. I fail to see how any of the 3e customization options are being taken away. What are you losing here, exactly? If you want a customized monster, customize it. I'm willing to bet your MM will not sprout prehensile limbs and pummel you until you acquiesce to its demands that you only use the pre constructed variants therein. It really doesn't look hard to me to bring over any options and monsters I want to from 3E into the 4E format, and I plan on converting lots and lots of stuff.

Frankly though, if Mike Mearls' example in this thread where instead of class levelling the half orc assassin he wanted to use for his ToEE game he built him as a monster devoted to the water temple with a suite of water aligned assassin-y powers doesn't sell you on the flexibility of customization options available within the 4E process, you and I are going to have to just agree to disagree, because we clearly have vastly different conceptions of awesome. (Which is perfectly alright, but really hampers further discussion)

 

[hong]

The D&D monster design system is based on taking a base creature and modifying it. I don't think 4e deviates too much from that. Within that system, you can change the base creature in a variety of ways - templates, class levels, HD advancement, adding special abilities - really anything that you want to sculpt the creature you want to (irrespective of system). If you want to get the most versatility out of your system, then the more 'base' creatures you have, the more creatures you can take through this process of monster improvement. I think that's a fair assumption of unique - a base creature that can be modified, that is unique in its race compared to any other creature.

Take my earlier example. If you have 500 base creatures, you can give each 6 roles, and create 3000 different creatures. If you only have 150 base creatures and 350 creatures based on those creatures that already have a role, you could've created only 900 creatures, but you've already created 350 of those. Which one is more bang for your buck? Which one is more versatile?

Pinotage

Do you really think the only purpose of an MM entry is "a base creature that can be modified"?

 

[Stoat]

Think of the 3e gnoll as a generic template for creating as many gnolls as you like. Give the gnoll a level in a class, use the standard array, switch the ability scores around so the 13 is in Dexterity, for example, and you have your archer. If you do that, I fail to see how they'll play differently, as long as you design the 3e one to fit the 4e one's role.

I did this in 3E with goblins. The "archer" goblins attacked with Shortbows at +6 and Shortswords at +4. The "infantry" goblins attacked with Shortswords at +5 and Shortbows at +5. It was a fun experiment, but I didn't find the difference to be very sexy.

Sure, if I'd statted them as having 5 or 6 levels, I could've larded 'em up with weird feats and unique equipment to make them truly distinct, but they're freaking Goblins. I wanted them to be low-level threats.

Further, I could've made them Kobolds, and there would be almost no noticible mechanical change.

4E promises that "archers" will look different from "infantry" in a way that I find more interesting than just a few points to hit one way or the other, and it promises that this difference will happen at a relatively low level. It also promises to make "Goblins" more mechanically different from "Kobolds."

From the previews I've seen, it's delivering on those promises. To me, that's an improvement, and I'll happily sacrifice the Delver to get it.

 

[Sir Sebastian Hardin]

The thing is, we will only get about 120 different "species" of monsters... (much less if we have many animals and vermin)

 

[tigycho]

Originally Posted by Lizard
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 say the latter.


The latter involves some extra writing on my part instead of just looking up the stats in the book.

I prefer the former. Going by WotC's stated goal of making things easier for the average DM, this seems to fit.

Why can't we have both? Give me 1 goblin base AND 6 goblin specialists. Give me 1 orc base AND 6 orc specialists. Give me a Big old list of powers and templates I can applet to my based and specialists, if I want.

 

[Dausuul]

Why can't we have both? Give me 1 goblin base AND 6 goblin specialists. Give me 1 orc base AND 6 orc specialists. Give me a Big old list of powers and templates I can applet to my based and specialists, if I want.

I seem to recall that there are a dozen templates for monsters in the 4E DMG...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The thing is, we will only get about 120 different "species" of monsters... (much less if we have many animals and vermin)

Well, animals are species too.

I think 120 monsters is still an awful lot. Especially considering how many monsters in D&D are sapient and even have their own cultures. (These are the most likely to get multiple write-ups, as far as I can see.)
If we assume that a large adventure is focused around 4 races providing the typical foes for an adventure, and one adventure lasts enough for one level, this means you could get one full 1-30 levels spanning campaigns from the MM without ever repeating an existing species for more then the single adventure focussing on them. I think that would be a good baseline. After 30 levels of play, I am fine with buying new material, or creating my own monsters - if I really don't want to see an "old" monster again.

 

[StarFyre]

well

the best way they could have done this IMHO, is to have the base monster...and then a list of stuff you can replace...so several powers, spell abilities, items, etc.

Instead of wasting a full page for a similar monster with more hp and a replaced attack ability.

Hell, they could even do a quick chart for hp on one axis, level on the other.
i know..i've done it for my players

(we use laptop for a lot of stuff in my campaign)

Sanjay

 

[Thyrwyn]

I would much rather have a Frost Giant Viking, Frost Giant Jarl, Frost Giant Skald, and Frost Giant Shieldmaiden than a Frost Giant, Ash Giant, Sludge Giant, and Wonder Giant.

This echoes my feelings exactly, and many times over.

 

[Primal]

Honestly I've been running games for almost 30 years, with multiple groups and even at conventions, where table variety is even more pronounced, and I've never had this problem. Not once. Either I'm blessed or my policy of not DMing for asshats really does work.

Assigning a bonus or a penalty to something like using an improvised weapon is trivial and it doesn't take a master of improvisation to come up with.

What I'm trying to say that because different beings operate by different rules it's probably going to feel a lot more intimidating for new DMs to find their own style and balance with these rules than in 3E. For you and me slapping a penalty or improvising a rule may come naturally -- it doesn't for everyone, and I even know some experienced DMs who absolutely hate it.

Turning yourself into water? What? Explain it in game mechanics? Please. Honestly if a player would ask me that I'd probably laugh at them. The same way if a player came to my table with this awesome concept for his next character, the Tarrasque.

Why are DMs so afraid to simply do their jobs and adjudicate? Honestly, players are not going to bite.

The mechanics exist for a reason, especially in a highly *gamist* and rules-heavy system like D&D. Therefore it's a valid concern that you should be able to describe in game mechanics pretty much any phenomenon, ability or spell that exists within the setting. Otherwise, what's the point in having the rules in the first place? You could just as well be doing free-form storytelling.

So you would laugh at the player and yet you'd at the same time happily create beings that have abilities which exist outside the game mechanics? Hmmm... besides, you sound a bit too elitist with your last comment -- it's not just about adjudicating, because your rulings should be, in some shape or form, be based on the rules. If you constantly throw people with magical unique abilities that the PCs could/should never learn, how can you adjudicate fairly?