Changes in MM creatures - why?

[Christian]

Someone turn that damn replicator off already.

Maybe orcs should have numbers instead of names. "OK, 7849026 and 21089274 will guard this exit, 5743289 through 5743298 come with me." And re-name Gruumsh "1".

 

[drnuncheon]

Note that now, with the non-elite array of ability scores, the stock orc is now stronger than a stock gnoll and bugbear.

Er...and?

Someone explain why the new non-elite array was necessary. Or how it's inclusion helps the game or a DM.

OK. When you think of a race's warriors, is it:

a) the average joe off the street, or
b) a member of that race who tends to be stronger and tougher than average, and maybe a little less on the mental scale?

Hmm...I know what my guess would be.

Orcs used to be known (in 3.0) as the sword fodder with a respectable (and feared) punch. Now their damage is "normal", and at odds with the very description given in their MM listing.

They'll crit more often. That scares players (clearly, since they had to nerf keen/improved critical because of it).

J

 

[Quasqueton]

You are missing my point of aggravation.

I thought the MM listings were the stats for the base, average, archtypical, common creature.

Using orcs as the example:

A base, average, archtypical, grunt, commonly met orc would have Str 15, Dex 10, Con 11, Int 9, Wis 8, Cha 8 and probably be wearing scalemail and using a greataxe. It fit the image and description given in the MM. For the past 3 years, players and DMs have had that concept in their head.

Now though, the base, average, archtypical, grunt commonly met orc is completely different. His stats are altered, the expected gear is different. This new orc has a different feel. Leather armor? Other than the rare rogue-type orc, I would never have imagined a grunt orc in anything less than some medium/heavy armor. Falchion? That definately is not a weapon "that cause the most damage in the least time."

Yes, a DM can change the stats and equipment. I did so for nonbase, nonaverage, nonarchtypical orcs (and for orcs in unusual situations or locations). But the base, average, archtypical, common orc listed in the MM should not be one of my (or anyone's) altered versions.

They set the image of an orc and his abilities and his gear with the 3.0 MM. A revision to tidy up the MM should not have altered the stats, gear, and feel of a perfectly workable and accepted creature. We're not talking about a rarely-used creature who needed balancing to match what was orignally intended and described in its MM listing (pit fiend). The common humanoids of the MM have been used by every DM, all the time, against every party of adventurers. And the stats and gear were not unbalanced so that they didn't operate the way they were intended. Why change?

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

Originally posted by Quasqueton
Note that now, with the non-elite array of ability scores, the stock orc is now stronger than a stock gnoll and bugbear.

Er...and?

That doesn't make you take a moment and consider the paradigm shift?

Have you ever thought of grunt orcs being stronger than grunt bugbears? Sure, an uncommonly strong orc could be stronger than a stock bugbear; but a stock orc stronger than a stock bugbear?

Quasqueton

 

[hong]

You are missing my point of aggravation.

And you are missing the point of most people's responses.

You see, if you are going to go to the trouble of posting a long, reasoned critique of something in the books, it's generally an accepted convention that such a critique should be of a substantial problem. Something that can't easily be addressed without wholesale reworking of the rules, or perhaps (if not a rules issue) something dealing with the game's fundamental assumptions regarding style, setting or tone. Not something as trivial as "oh dear, orcs have swopped their axes for falchions. I must now have a lie down."

For example, if you read the DMG closely, you will find, between pages 24 and 67 inclusive, AT LEAST six occurrences of "it's" where "its" is clearly the intended meaning. And if you turn to the PHB, between pages 165 and 253 inclusive, there are AT LEAST three misspellings of "rogue" as "rouge". So perhaps -- and I say this with full and complete understanding for your grievance -- that if you intend to make a complaint, you should direct your energies towards such problems, being, as we all know, the truly significant issues that all D&D gamers face.

HTH, GTBOA!

 

[hong]

That doesn't make you take a moment and consider the paradigm shift?

We should resolve to consider all possible synergies so as to subvert the dominant paradigm.

Have you ever thought of grunt orcs being stronger than grunt bugbears? Sure, an uncommonly strong orc could be stronger than a stock bugbear; but a stock orc stronger than a stock bugbear?

Heavens to Betsy. The very foundations of my campaign world have been rocked to the core at this shocking, shocking discovery.

Oops! Sorry, that was just the cat.

DAMN CAT! LEAVE MY MINIS ALONE!

 

[Richards]

I'm still reading my way through the 3.5 Monster Manual, but the first thing that shocked me was: chuuls now speak Common (or Undercommon)? They do? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Okay, sure, they're as intelligent as a human. I have no problem with them understanding a spoken language or having nonvocal language skills, but somehow I find it difficult to believe something with the mouthparts of a giant lobster (with the addition of paralytic tentacles, no less), would have the necessary vocal apparatus to actually speak a human language.

A crustacean language of clicks and pops, I could buy. A sort of "Morse code" language based on clicking their claws together, I could buy. "What are you doing in my pool? Grrr! I'll kill you!"...not so much so. I think the chuuls in my campaign will continue to be mute.

(And I thought it was bad enough in 3.0 when they suddenly decided that ropers could talk...)

Johnathan

P.S. - Despite the above gripe, for the most part I love what they've done with the 3.5 Monster Manual. Of course, I'm only in the "D" listings, so further bursts of outrage may occur...

 

[Anabstercorian]

Actually, I'm with Quasqueton. Monsters in the MM should DEFINATELY have the 11, 10, 11, 10, 11, 10 stat array, just so that you can design them more easily.

As for the point that the warriors of a race aren't likely to be the 'average' member of that race - Are there any orcs that AREN'T warriors? They're almost all like that! They can't ALL have the non-elite array, it's just not classy.

 

[Quasqueton]

You see, if you are going to go to the trouble of posting a long, reasoned critique of something in the books, it's generally an accepted convention that such a critique should be of a substantial problem.

Oh. After reading most of the complaint threads on these forums, I came to a completely different theory on an acceptable rant. I thought the threshold was much lower.

My world's average, archtypical, base, and common orcs were perfectly matched to the average, archtypical, base, and common orcs of D&D a week ago. Now though, my world's average, archtypical, base, and common orcs are a house-ruled alteration from the average, archtypical, base, and common orcs of D&D.

Now my "exotic", lightly armored, orcs of the desert region are the average, arch. . .

Quasqueton

 

[hong]

Oh. After reading most of the complaint threads on these forums, I came to a completely different theory on an acceptable rant. I thought the threshold was much lower.

Yes, but people are stupid.

My world's average, archtypical, base, and common orcs were perfectly matched to the average, archtypical, base, and common orcs of D&D a week ago. Now though, my world's average, archtypical, base, and common orcs are a house-ruled alteration from the average, archtypical, base, and common orcs of D&D.

Poor dear. Have a liedown. And some chicken soup.