An Open Letter: 'Missing the Mark: Mike Mearls’s ‘Revised’ Ogre Mage'

[Pants]

My opinion that the monsters that are a result of this "make monster to fit mechanical niche" process mostly suck is indeed subjective...I respect that krenshar, destrachan, yrthak and digester probably have their fans. You're effectively saying that "hey, I have this cool concept for a monster" is equally likely to result in something lame as "hey, I need a CR 9 flying sonic monster". The way things have panned out, having seen what this priority order has created, I don't think that's the case.

My opinion is that 'making a monster to fill a flavor niche aren't inherently better than those that were created to fill a mechanical niche.' In fact, 3.x is not the first edition of D&D to create monsters to fill a mechanical niche, 1e had that in quite prolific ways as well.

Remember the Nilbog, Wolf-In-Sheeps, the various puddings, the RUST MONSTER? All creatures created to fill an encounter niche; that of screwing the players in unexpected ways.

 

[Squire James]

Hey! Just be glad the Ogre Mage was detailed in the first Monster Manual, or it would probably pop up in MM 4 as an Ogre Sorcerer 6...

 

[Pants]

Hey! Just be glad the Ogre Mage was detailed in the first Monster Manual, or it would probably pop up in MM 4 as an Ogre Sorcerer 6...

Which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing

 

[FireLance]

The designers keep proving their willingness to compromise flavour for mechanics reasons (e.g. pokemount), to dispose of flavour entirely to suit a design need (e.g. mystic theurge), or to design flavour as an afterthought in order to meet a mechanics need (e.g. yrthak). That's not self-evident enough for you? Sure, some people see no problem with this.

Flavor can't be measured on a linear scale. Paladins summoning their special mounts and prestige classes like the mystic theurge may have a different flavor from previous editions of the game, but I don't think it's fair to say that the flavor has been compromised or disposed of.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

What I find particularily striking about this discussion is the vocal minority that considers everything that has been before as automatically better than a new intelligent design of a monster, even though most monsters in AD&D where slapdashed together withour rhyme or reason.

What I find striking (and rather obnoxious) is people ascribing motives and mindsets to people that not only are erroneous but are explicitly and emphatically denied. No one has made a blanket statement that 'everything that has been before [is] automatically better'. Everyone has pretty much said flat out that a lot of what was done in 3.x is better. If the so-called grognards truly believed that all that is new is crap, they wouldn't care about any of this. They'd be too busy rolling 3d6s until they got stats high enough to be a paladin.

The assertion that monsters in AD&D were slapdashed together is equally absurd. While AD&D lacked the standardized mechanics of 3.x, monsters were certainly created to fill a certain niche or provide a requisite challenge, and yes, sometimes just to be cool or wierd or scary. Was every critter in AD&D a paragon of logic and sublime balance? Hell, no. There were a ton of stinkers. Same holds true, now.

 

[Hussar]

The designers keep proving their willingness to compromise flavour for mechanics reasons (e.g. pokemount), to dispose of flavour entirely to suit a design need (e.g. mystic theurge), or to design flavour as an afterthought in order to meet a mechanics need (e.g. yrthak). That's not self-evident enough for you? Sure, some people see no problem with this.

Umm, you're pokemount arguement isn't exactly damning. Shadowfax was a pokemount. (Take that RC)

In fact, there are numerous examples of summonable mounts from fiction. S. R. Donaldson had them in the Thomas Covenant Chronicles. Hercules had one in an animated series.

Apparently, for some reason, keeping clunky mechanics that every player hated is better than coming up with new mechanics that fit with the character (after all, a paladin calling upon a celestial mount to aid him in his battles with evil drips with flavour) and makes the players happy.

To each his own I suppose.

The laughable part here is that Rounser has so loudly denounced the flavour additions to various books while denouncing the stripping of flavour here. Which is it? Is 3e devoid of flavour or does it have too much?

 

[Pants]

The assertion that monsters in AD&D were slapdashed together is equally absurd. While AD&D lacked the standardized mechanics of 3.x, monsters were certainly created to fill a certain niche or provide a requisite challenge, and yes, sometimes just to be cool or wierd or scary. Was every critter in AD&D a paragon of logic and sublime balance? Hell, no. There were a ton of stinkers. Same holds true, now.

Yep, very true, every edition has it's fair share of stinkers

 

[sjmiller]

Hey! Just be glad the Ogre Mage was detailed in the first Monster Manual, or it would probably pop up in MM 4 as an Ogre Sorcerer 6...

I actually would not have a problem with them creating an ogre with sorcerer class levels. It's not an ogre mage, and it's not pretending to be an ogre mage. I guess my point is that if you want to take a creature from a previous edition and bring it into the current edition, why make massive changes to it and make it into something it never was? If you are going to do that, why not just give it a new name and be done with it?

 

[rounser]

The laughable part here is that Rounser has so loudly denounced the flavour additions to various books while denouncing the stripping of flavour here. Which is it? Is 3e devoid of flavour or does it have too much?

Your question is laughable, Hussar, because it paints your personal loyalty to 3E as an all or nothing issue without room for specific critique. It's obviously either all one thing or the other to you, so I'm no sure I can discuss anything more sophisticated than "four legs good, two legs baaaad" with you. That's what's laughable.

 

[Nyaricus]

How did this thread go from being so cordial to a crapfest like *that*

C'est la vie....