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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And you still can, with the rules in the DMG for turning any creature into a Solo threat.

Sneak Attack Scoop!

 

[Patlin]

Hmm. Solo-izing a monster sounds pretty cool. I wonder if the section goes on to discuss solo-izing a PC if you want to play a one on one game? My guess is that would be more complicated, though.

 

[Keenath]

For example, there are a lot of unique creatures in the 3E Monster Manual, but I imagine that I would only use less than 30% of the creatures in that book in actual gameplay. Many monsters like the Digester, Ythrak, Dretch, or various other creatures are certainly unqiue, but they are not interesting or useful.

Exactly -- that can only go so far until it becomes monster-of-the-week, "What kind of wacky guardian beast do we see THIS time?"

It's easier to build plots and such when you can fill many different roles -- and show off many unique and interesting powers! -- while staying in the same general flavor.

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.

This is exactly my feeling.

So, yes, I still maintain that all those 4e kobolds are nothing else than 3e kobolds with class levels and feats. And just to point out once again, yes, 3e monster design is more cumbersome than 4e, but that's not the point.

But you're just wrong there.

If they were just class/feat combos, then a Gnoll Rogue and a Goblin Rogue and a Drow Rogue would operate *pretty much the same way*. There would be nothing about a goblin rogue that screams "goblin" when he's at the table -- he's just another Rogue, who happens to be green and warty instead of slender and black.

The 4e concept, the whole POINT of the exercise, is to make the powers fit the flavor of the creature. You can't do that with "lego blocks" like classes. A goblin rogue should have powers that relate to being a tricky little bugger who fights dirty, while a drow rogue should have powers that relate to poison and paralysis and entrapping enemies.

Each racial variant should (and will) have unique abilities that relate to their race. A kobold dragonshield isn't just a kobold who happens to also be a paladin; he's a dragonshield, and that means he's a defender who has powers related to being a quick, small creature with a draconic heritage.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

And you still can, with the rules in the DMG for turning any creature into a Solo threat.

It seems a little silly to me to have to put a Solo template on an ill-tempered boar. I'll wing it.

And I don't think a creature should undergo changes in behavior based on how many PCs it is facing.

I have a little Simulationist muscle that I can't help flexing every now and then.

 

[Pinotage]

The game is built around PCs' vs. an enemy group.

Very good point. I hadn't considered it. The 4e MM makes little more sense given this assumption, but at the same time having a single creature never stopped you from building variants based on it.

That said, I'm starting to see why 4e did the MM the way they're doing it. I don't agree with the approach since it seems limiting its its scope, but it has a slightly different scope that is not without merit.

Pinotage

 

[Pinotage]

But you're just wrong there.

If they were just class/feat combos, then a Gnoll Rogue and a Goblin Rogue and a Drow Rogue would operate *pretty much the same way*. There would be nothing about a goblin rogue that screams "goblin" when he's at the table -- he's just another Rogue, who happens to be green and warty instead of slender and black.

The 4e concept, the whole POINT of the exercise, is to make the powers fit the flavor of the creature. You can't do that with "lego blocks" like classes. A goblin rogue should have powers that relate to being a tricky little bugger who fights dirty, while a drow rogue should have powers that relate to poison and paralysis and entrapping enemies..

I understand that 4e is putting powers into creatures that give them more racial flavor. That's a good thing. Having said that, if you consider most of those powers as, for example, feats, you can build exactly the same mechanical and flavorful creature of the same race in 3e using only classes and feats. Take a look at my earlier example on the kobold dragon shield. It's mechanically identical, and hence has that same racial flavor.

I disagree that you can't use 3e feats and classes to add flavor. Perhaps not with classes on their own, but feats and spells can be a powerful tool for creating the same flavor of the 4e creatures. It's a pity that most people don't seem to realise that.

But here's a question for 4e monster designers. People keep mentioning that using classes and particularly spellcasters made 3e too complex. But at the same time what would a Level 16 kobold look like in 4e? Can you even create such a creature? Or is 4e aimed at targetting specific creatures at specific levels? I'd like to see more creatures at higher. Of those we've seen, the pit fiend is positively boring compared to its 3e counterpart. Will magical 4e creatures at Level 20 be more exciting than high level 3e creatures and creatures with class levels and hence access to loads of abilities?

Pinotage

 

[Kishin]

Really? That is really sad to hear. I know that when I want a unique gnoll barbarian, I am able to produce decent variations pretty much 100% of the time, often on the fly if needed. And I'm pretty sure the gnoll clawfighter is going to be the same gnoll clawfighter the next time with zero added depth.

I disagree with your assessment and your implication that it is 'sad', or that I am somehow incapable of making unique characters. If I want a cool and unique NPC, I'll spend some time on them and tweak them. A barbarian grunt is going to be a barbarian grunt. Whether its a Pouncing grunt, 2 weapon power attacking grunt......the variations not very dissimilar. There's several pretty straightforward builds, and then there's me spending an hour hunting and cherrypicking feats from several hundred dollars worth of books to build an NPC that does exactly what I want and still has depth. Think of your design time as a movie budget. Now, do you want to be dumping the majority of your budget on riding across Rohan, or do you want to channel it into Helm's Deep?

And no offense, I highly doubt you whip up 10+ class levels of NPC 'on the fly'. In the future, I would ask you not impugn my DMing ability with such an elitist air.

If I want to tweak the clawfighter, I can slide in and out at wills/encounters fairly easily and tweak a few numbers. That to me seems a bit more 'fiddly' than just class levelling, especially since exceptions based design opens a lot more doors, and saves me the time of searching for the correct bloody key when the window is wide open and I can just jump on through it.

 

[Patlin]

Of those we've seen, the pit fiend is positively boring compared to its 3e counterpart.

Wow, really? I thought the 4e Pit Fiend looked like a really cool monster. It lost maybe 30 abilities I'd probably never use, but retained (through rituals) the oportunity to have it do whatever the plot called for. I especially liked the ability to throw minion bombs!

 

[Pinotage]

Wow, really? I thought the 4e Pit Fiend looked like a really cool monster. It lost maybe 30 abilities I'd probably never use, but retained (through rituals) the oportunity to have it do whatever the plot called for. I especially liked the ability to throw minion bombs!

Yeah, it was the minion bombs that really put me off. But the other abilities too seemed rather weak compared to the things the 3e one could do. Admittedly, the 3e one had a lot of baggage, like many 3e monsters of higher level, but it felt a little more interesting than a Level 26 pit fiend that could in combat really only do 3 or 4 things that weren't that exciting to begin with.

Pinotage

 

[FourthBear]

I'd like to see more creatures at higher. Of those we've seen, the pit fiend is positively boring compared to its 3e counterpart. Will magical 4e creatures at Level 20 be more exciting than high level 3e creatures and creatures with class levels and hence access to loads of abilities?

Frankly, I think the 4e Pit Fiend is about as interesting as the 3e Pit Fiend. Looking over the stat blocks, each has abilities the other lacks and many of the spell-like abilities the 3e Pit Fiend has aren't particularly effective in actual high-level combat.

More importantly, I believe the 4e Pit Fiend is a far more useful write-up for in play use right out of the MM, since I dislike the laundry lists of spell-like abilities that require you to have all spells memorized or be flipping constantly back and forth at theoretically exciting moments between references. I do think that the 4e approach to monster design will mean that higher level monsters will tend to be written up with fewer options, but each option will tend to be more viable in a confrontation. As long as DMs use reasonable judgment extrapolating and adding to these reference stat blocks as they wish, I think it will be overall better for the game. If a DM really feels that all dragons should be arcane spellcasters with a dozen or so spells ready to use in combat, then they can always add them back in. I'm glad it looks less likely won't have to wade through lists of cantrips, 1st level spells, long lists of feats and extraneous skills while I'm trying to work out what its going to do to screw with the party the next round of combat. Out of combat, I have the time to extemporize and make decisions that, yeah, maybe it makes sense for this particular Pit Fiend, Duke of Black Orchids, to be a master of flower arrangement or that he really should have the ability to speak Goblin. I'd rather have simpler, cleaner stat blocks in combat play, though.