"Bait Monsters" and the "Trained Mindset"

[danbuter1]

If you run any type of Norse or winter world, frost giants tend to feature in at least one adventure.

But my original point was THIS IS NOT THE ONLY MONSTER GETTING BUMPED, and the ONLY reason they are getting bumped is to sell MM2 or MM3 when they come out. WotC straight up said that. But I guess you just want to design your own Monster Manual. Have fun.

 

[Gold Roger]

If you run any type of Norse or winter world, frost giants tend to feature in at least one adventure.

But my original point was THIS IS NOT THE ONLY MONSTER GETTING BUMPED, and the ONLY reason they are getting bumped is to sell MM2 or MM3 when they come out. WotC straight up said that. But I guess you just want to design your own Monster Manual. Have fun.

That's also ok with me.

Just as I don't care about Frost giants, other people might not care about Naga, Troglodytes or Rakshasa. All of those I could see getting bumped and all three I'd miss for the time.

But the real purpose of the first MM is not to ensure that some mythical and subjectively spirit of the game is upheld. It is to ensure that a broad spectrum of possible oppsition is ensured over all 30 levels.

The frost giant isn't necessary for that. In fact he detracts from that goal, because he's just a lump of HP and attack that takes up space. So is the Trog just another low level humanoid that looks a lot like a lizardman. And so they don't really belong in a MM1.

 

[bowbe]

Thanks, Bowbe.

Though I disagree about the Aranea, Choker and Chuul. LOVE those guys. Chuuls are usually my "you gunna get screwed up" monster. Chokers I plan on using three times in my current two campaigns.

And Aranea are just cool. Spider shapeshifters who conceal themselves among the population. Mmm. Sexy.

Don't get me wrong. I used Chuul, Chokers AND Athac in Aberrations for Necromancer Games a few years back.

I really dig those monsters too, just saying for my gaming $$ I'd probably be able to wait for those. That said tho, for every campaign that uses them regularly there are 100 who are getting ready to convert and run the G series again. We have aranea in Bard's Gate, and I think there is one in the City of Brass. They are kinda cool/creepy as well but again, if i hadn't had access to them I would have used something else pretty easily or come up with a work around.

I know not everyone uses Frost Giants. I get that. I "get" that some would simply swap out the word "fire" for "frost" and be happy with that. I know others feel that a critter like a "frost giant" is simply a large scaled "meat bag/fighter" for the PCs of appropriate level to pound on. I definitely want something better and more unique for all giant types. I can think of a dozen ideas off the top of my head that would make the various races of giants more unique and special than they currently are and would gladly offer them if Chris Perkins emailed me and offered to pay me for those ideas.

He's prolly not going to do that, so failing that I'll simply say that I certainly want to see the full suite of giants, dragons, iconic demons and devils, orcs, ogres, trolls, genies, mummies, vampires, wraiths, spectres, zombies, ghouls and skeletons in my 4e MMI.

In 3.5 for example, I didn't get the frost giant boss stat block in 3.5 MM being a blackguard. Really, I didnt get blackguards. Needing sneak attack, bluff, and all that jazz didn't really fit the mold for me. Thus for the Frost Giant, why not a barbarian as that fits the mythic version and flavor text better. Why not a frenzied berserker?

Luckily it isn't much of an issue for me to ignore the blackguard and whip up a barbarian or frenzied berserker. Yet, if in 4e "monsters" are supposed to go back to being "monsters" again, you kinda "need" your monsters to start with. Not having the stat at all to start with and having to wait a year, or get the "upgrade" off DDI as "bonus content" would be lame. That was more to the point of my suggesting the various critters like digesters, arrowhawks and tojanida.

I guess what I get at is it's fully ok for people to be po'ed about hearing this kind of stuff and express themselves without getting tore down for having an opinion that isn't the company line. They have a right to question the caretakers of the most popular RPG of all time when they start hearing things that they find well... questionable or downright distasteful, and possibly offensive. Equally its fully fine for people (consumers who buy said books to stay current, or RPGA members who are forced to switch for example) to call these caretakers on such decisions.

Now agreed, calling out these caretakers should be done in as "hater" free way as possible. Throwing mud to be throwing mud is no good at all. Asking why is fine. Being annoyed is fine. I know that in my case I may not always have popular opinions, but I do try to offer helpful suggestion!

Thanks

Case

 

[Lackhand]

I don't think anyone's tearing down people who are upset. Anyway, I don't mean to, and if anyone is tearing, that's mean and uncivil and not very nice.

That out of the way...

They're putting more monsters into this MM than we had in the last one. I'm willing to bet that that's counting Orc Scout as a separate monster from Orc Soldier or whatever, but the point still stands that there's a pagecount limit, and stat blocks chew up space, and (using MM V and so on as an example) the book will be more usable as is, due to statblock layout.

They've pointed out what they're doing with this book, which is asking each monster through the gate what its unique schtick is. If one can't be found, it goes back for a later book.

I suspect that the only exceptions to this rule are the animals, and they're such a small portion of the book, it's incomparable.

So the question is, given page count and editorial constraints, which would be better:
-] An extraordinarily abbreviated frost giant stat block.
-] It goes in, and a monster with a good, unique ability goes out (extend them the level of trust of not ranting that they're giving us another yrthak; assume the designers are capable of learning from their mistakes. That's an order )
-] It gets changed, so that its abilities are unique. Note that this is a fairly massive change: ogres and hill giants have more traction, so it's only fair that they inherit the whole giant panoply. I think people would complain a *lot* if frost giants could suddenly toss Otilukes' or were summoning monsters or whatever. That's been my experience with every other change, anyway.

The frost giant getting pushed off a book or two (appearing as an iconic in the frostburn equivalent, say), is the least of three evils, to me.

Everyone's mileage will vary, I'm certain.

What would make me happiest is option 1 -- in the form of a list of instructions on how to palette-swap a fire giant into a frost giant.

What will in fact happen is that the frost giant will appear either in MM2 or in the Frost Burn analogue.

Which, really... if you used guardinals heavily, this was a price you paid in 3rd edition; if you used archons, your choirs were scattered all over the map.

 

[pawsplay]

Not so much of one, really. More HD, better ability scores, etc., but all pretty much along the same axis of development as a hill giant. If giants advanced by HD, a frost giant would hardly look different from a 14-HD advanced hill giant.

You could say the same thing about dwarves and frost giants. Yes, they have better ability scores... including notably improved intelligence and all that goes with that. They tend to come with different equipment. The menu suggestion would, imo, slow down encounter creation that involved giants. Frost giants and hill giants serve different rules. Hill giants are simply heavy hitters and brutes... frost giants are more than that, they have a mythic connection (Norse), and have equipment and abilities similar to big adenturers. They are frequently evil in a deliberate way that hill giants just aren't.

Frost giants aren't simply giants with the "frost" template applied. That would be like replacing virtually every extraplanar creature with "fiendish" or "celestial" versions of some regular kind of creature.

 

[pawsplay]

Don't get me wrong. I used Chuul, Chokers AND Athac in Aberrations for Necromancer Games a few years back.

I really dig those monsters too, just saying for my gaming $$ I'd probably be able to wait for those. That said tho, for every campaign that uses them regularly there are 100 who are getting ready to convert and run the G series again. We have aranea in Bard's Gate, and I think there is one in the City of Brass. They are kinda cool/creepy as well but again, if i hadn't had access to them I would have used something else pretty easily or come up with a work around.

A version of aranea appeared in Isle of Dread. To me, they are iconic. They also have the advantage of looking like one kind of monster (bug dudes) and being another (NPC spellcasters).

 

[WhatGravitas]

But my original point was THIS IS NOT THE ONLY MONSTER GETTING BUMPED, and the ONLY reason they are getting bumped is to sell MM2 or MM3 when they come out. WotC straight up said that. But I guess you just want to design your own Monster Manual. Have fun.

Problem in that case: I'm a consummate tinkerer, so designing my own Monster Manual is actually fun for me. I'd be happy with a big book of guidelines, tutorials and good examples to create the fitting monster for my needs. Because I like to spring some nasty surprises at my players, that only I know of - but than, I'm not particularly attached to any iconics except the rank-and-file stuff like orcs and goblins... and the mind flayers, which I'd rather see done right in the "Psionic" book.

But, yeah, that's the problem: Something that bothers one type of buyers (like you) isn't relevant to others (like me), I guess we have to see, how that will affect the sales. *shrugs*

Cheers, LT.

 

[ruleslawyer]

You could say the same thing about dwarves and frost giants. Yes, they have better ability scores... including notably improved intelligence and all that goes with that.

You're joking, right? +4 Str, +2 Con, +4 Int, +4 Cha, and 2 extra Hit Dice (which are the ONLY mechanical differences in the base giant builds other than the cold subtype and the flavorish stuff like companions, attitudes, etc.). This is a LONG way from the difference between the frost giant stats and those for a 1-HD humanoid with a basket of random minor racial abilities.

They tend to come with different equipment. The menu suggestion would, imo, slow down encounter creation that involved giants. Frost giants and hill giants serve different rules. Hill giants are simply heavy hitters and brutes... frost giants are more than that, they have a mythic connection (Norse), and have equipment and abilities similar to big adenturers. They are frequently evil in a deliberate way that hill giants just aren't.

That's ALL flavor text, not mechanics.

Frost giants aren't simply giants with the "frost" template applied. That would be like replacing virtually every extraplanar creature with "fiendish" or "celestial" versions of some regular kind of creature.

Not so much. The mechanical differences between even a babau and a succubus (two equal-CRed demons) are vast. The difference between a hill and frost giant (or a frost and fire giant, or a stone and fire giant, etc.) are those I've listed. Not very hard to build an easy-to-read table for these.

 

[Magus Coeruleus]

Frost giants important? Sorry, but I haven't used a frost giant in 3.X at all. They're... boring for me. And that's the point, some love the frost giant, some hate it, some ignore it.

But I hardly think that a frost giant is very iconic, compared to things like mind flayers, modrons, or drow.

The funny thing for me is that, since I played D&D (BECMI), not AD&D most of my gaming years, for me mind flayers, modrons, and drow are not important or "iconic" at all. Maybe iconic AD&D but D&D 3e bought the rights to D&D and AD&D and combined them, so to me the upper-echelon of iconic at this point is if it has appeared in all of these versions. That doesn't mean I don't think other thinks should be in, just that pan-edition critters should be. I'm not making a categorically imperative claim here, mind you. Some people want X and others want Y and there's no absolute "rule" that ought to be followed, sure But IMHO if a critter is in BECMI, AD&D1, AD&D2, and 3.x E, that's damned good precedent that should be shown a little respect! And respect doesn't mean "somewhere down the line in 'core' MM9." It means in the very first MM.

If the argument is that some iconics are boring or not different enough then rather than axe them I'd prefer to see what they're doing with things like gnolls vs hobgoblins, i.e. reinvent them to have combat abilities that fit the fluff they've had all these years. I think that's an awesome approach. So for frost giants, for instance, I'd like to either see them make it more interesting and unique if they think it's too much a modified copy of the fire giant OR, and this is just as good or better for me, have the MM include some official, consistent, clear guidelines for modifying those creatures that are so similar to others (frost vs. fire giant being but one example) that they feel it's not worth eating up space in the MM. People can ignore or house-rule the difference, of course, and I would likely do so but I like to see an official version of pan-edition iconics at least to start with, if not to use in classic D&D scenarios.

 

[zoroaster100]

While the hints at the new exception based mechanics sound intriguing, I'm turned off by the purposeful delay of iconic monsters to get us to buy additional monster manuals in the future. I often buy additional monster manuals anyway, but I really resent being manipulated into spending money on stuff I don't want in order to get stuff I want. If WOTC wants us all to get future monster manuals, they should fill them with great new monsters, not hold off on iconic monsters to include in the future.