Coming to a MM near you- FLAVOR!

[I'm A Banana]

I think it's poorly said, since the MM doesn't do that sort of thing.

Oh it doesn't?

Here's the description of a monstrous bat:

Normal bats are innocuous wild animals that feed on mammals, insects, reptiles, or fruit. Monstrous bats, on the other hand, are fearsome predators that attack just about anything without provocation.

"Attacks just about anything without provocation" is not a description, it is basically the MM telling the DM "Hey, you fight these things!"

Similarly, here's the lore.

DC 15: Fire bats are native to the Elemental Chaos, but they now live in the world. They can be domesticated and are often found alongside azer beastlords and other fire creatures.

DC 15: Shadowhunter bats linger near places touched by the Shadowfell. They hunt alone or in small groups, sometimes acting at the behest of other shadow creatures or undead masters.

What's that you say? Fire bats hang out with fire creatures, and shadow bats hang out with shadow creatures?

Shocker.

Or, here's one of my favorites that got previewed before 4e was released and forecasted this inanity:

Bodaks are heartless creatures for the sake of killing, serving their own desires or the desires of an even crueler master.
...
Arcana DC 20: Bodaks are undead humanoids with strong ties to the Shadowfell. Its visage is so ghastly that it can kill with a look.

The shocker to this was that Bodaks in 3e and in 2e had some pretty interesting flavor (normal people who died contaminated by tremendous evil) that 4e abandoned in favor of "kills for the sake of killing." Which is probably the most uninspiring motive possible.

And while the lore of the galeb duhr is fine (though it re-uses the "escaped slaves" trope that is rampant with the dwarves), the first thing a newbie DM reads about them is this:

Remorseless creatures of living stone, galeb duhrs often serve hill giants or earth titans, and their nature is similarly harsh and unrelenting.

"Hey, DM," says the MM, "Rock monsters like to hang out with rock monsters." It then goes on to repeat that info in the lore, and the encounter groups.

And of course there's the infamous-by-this-point blue dragon/DIRE PIKACHU.

It's also worth noting that the Lore checks are specifically PC information that might never come to light, if the PC's don't really care about what the thing in front of them is doing in front of them. Though that might be a problem more of presentation than of lousy writing.

I mean, it's unfair of me to say that all the monsters from the MM1 are like that, but CLEARLY the monster manual DOES do that sort of thing, and more than just once or twice. It's the 4e equivalent of the Ythrak. "Why would I use this thing?"

Quality of fluff can be a pretty subjective thing, of course. But the utility of fluff is less subjective. Even bad fluff can be useful at the table. But MM's 1 and 2 have clear problems with this.

Nothing about the galeb duhr, for instance, seems to warrant its own monster entry. It's a side-kick for giants. It's a palette swap of the Azer. There's a hint that they might not all be so aggressive, but there's nothing on how to use that hook in an encounter with them to make an encounter with them stand out from an encounter with anything else. If your rock dwarf ain't providing artillery support for your rock people, it's got rock nothing to rock do.

Now, the galeb duhr in 2e could fight you, or could tell you where the nearest mine is, or could just provide atmosphere as its gravelly "song" echoed off the mountain peaks. That gives me at least three different kinds of encounters with this one monster. That's a lot of utility out of a stat block. And that's not even a particularly strong 2e example.

 

[LostSoul]

Oh it doesn't?

Here's the description of a monstrous bat:

It's a bat, what do you expect?

The shocker to this was that Bodaks in 3e and in 2e had some pretty interesting flavor (normal people who died contaminated by tremendous evil) that 4e abandoned in favor of "kills for the sake of killing." Which is probably the most uninspiring motive possible.

That's not all there is to Bodaks - they are created by Nightwalkers. Nightwalkers who murder mortals in the Shadowfell can raise then as Bodaks through a special ritual. They don't kill for the sake of killing; it says right in the entry that "The bodak then acts at the nightwalker's behest, serving whomever its master dictates."

Why did you leave that out?

It's also worth noting that the Lore checks are specifically PC information that might never come to light, if the PC's don't really care about what the thing in front of them is doing in front of them. Though that might be a problem more of presentation than of lousy writing.

That's fine; I think it's a feature. Players who are smart will be able to hit that Religion check (via ritual or extended research) to figure out that Bodaks serve Nightwalkers, and that might give them a clue as to what's going on in the adventure.

I mean, it's unfair of me to say that all the monsters from the MM1 are like that, but CLEARLY the monster manual DOES do that sort of thing, and more than just once or twice. It's the 4e equivalent of the Ythrak. "Why would I use this thing?"

I think it's unfair to say the MM does this as a whole when it clearly doesn't. There's a lot of usable fluff in there. I mean, check out the Boneclaw next to the Bodak entry. All this stuff about a powerful night hag named Grigwartha - that's an adventure hook in itself.

It's not the best book for fluff, but it's a lot better than how you paint it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's a bat, what do you expect?

At least, for it to act like a bat (e.g.: fierce to its prey as it swoops in out of nowhere, scared of other stuff)

At best, for it to act like a bat of myth (e.g.: inspiring dread and fear).

And if it's just meant to be another monster's sidekick, maybe we don't need a "monstrous bat" entry at all. Slap a statblock up with that other monster, where I will actually pay attention and use it because it supports that other monster better than it works by itself.

Certainly I don't expect berzerker-bats.

That's not all there is to Bodaks - they are created by Nightwalkers. Nightwalkers who murder mortals in the Shadowfell can raise then as Bodaks through a special ritual. They don't kill for the sake of killing; it says right in the entry that "The bodak then acts at the nightwalker's behest, serving whomever its master dictates."

Why did you leave that out?

Mostly 'cuz it's not about the Bodak (who the entry is named after), but about the Nightwalker (which is just present as a Bodak power-up). And if they don't kill for the sake of killing, then telling us right under the name that they kill for the sake of killing is a really strange way to tell us what a Bodak is.

And even being created by Nightwalkers ain't that special. Undead spawning minions is as old as Vampires. It's better than "kill for the sake of killing," but it doesn't take much to trump that little treat.

BUT, this is not really about the specifics anyway. You said the MM doesn't have those things, and I pointed out where it does. I've certainly met the necessary requirements for refuting that argument.

I think it's unfair to say the MM does this as a whole when it clearly doesn't. There's a lot of usable fluff in there. I mean, check out the Boneclaw next to the Bodak entry. All this stuff about a powerful night hag named Grigwartha - that's an adventure hook in itself.

It's not the best book for fluff, but it's a lot better than how you paint it.

I don't dispute your case that the MM also has some pretty good fluff. As I said above, fluff quality is pretty subjective (not every newbie DM knows every undead worth its salt spawns, so when they first hit that Bodak entry, it will be pretty nifty to them). Quantity-wise, I think we can all agree that there's more fluff than most 3e monsters overall, but less fluff than most 2e monsters, with some monsters getting significantly more love than others (Formorians, loved. Dragons, not so much).

The Grigwartha stuff isn't too shabby, and, yes, if the players make a DC 35 Arcana check, they gain a nice plot hook for all that effort. But it's not the kind of stuff I can use at the table. It should be kind of plot hook that comes at the end of a chain of other challenges in that "vast network," or one that lurks with Grigwartha's entry somewhere else in the book, and if I was going to use that plot hook, I think rolling for that information just because you see one of these skeletons is a pretty awkward way of kludging it in (what if they roll poorly and miss?). It's not a bad little seed for all that, but the presentation is all strange and un-usable.

And it comes after a full half-page of goofy-sounding stuff like...

Boneclaws are magically constructed undead built to hunt and slay the living. Liches, deathpriests of Orcus, shadar-kai necromancers, and other vile individuals use them as guards and agents. Their skewerlike claws contract and extend from moment to moment, sometimes instantly reaching a length of 10 feet or more before slowly contracting.

AKA: "Boneclaws are made pretty much like any other undead, and hang out with death critters, also like other undead. They also have retractable claws for some reason?"

And:

Boneclaws are intelligent undead constructs that enjoy hunting and slaying living creatures.

As opposed to other undead, perhaps slightly less intelligent, that enjoy hugging living creatures and giving them flowers?

"Why is this zombie kissing me?"
"Awww, he's just not smart enough to want to kill you."

I mean, if I can get through all that without being more inspired to run a battle where zombies want hugs than to use the Boneclaw at all, yes, I find a pretty good seed, buried at the end of the entry, for a villain that I have to generate myself.

But, again, this isn't about specifics. It's enough to say, "Yes, there are plenty of things in the MM that I think are completely ridiculous." I provided supporting evidence. I, also, clearly wasn't the only one. You don't need to defend it from me. In fact, doing so is going to result in little more than he said/she said, because fluff is pretty subjective, and how important it is differs depending on a DM's style. MM1 and MM2 didn't meet my needs, and you questioning my criticism (which, yeah, can be hyperbolic) is just internet people telling people they don't know how they should feel.

I am excited that I am getting better and more information on each monster. I (and many other people) thought the old one was not as good as it could have been. If you think this is a change for the negative, what do you think we are giving up, here? If you think this is a change for the positive, or are neutral on it, we're pretty much in the same place, and are really just quibbling about how much of an improvement we each expect it to be. Chalk it up to different styles. You clearly don't need dynamite bats. I do. You can endure 200 words of "Undead monster is undead, and also a monster." I can't. We have different needs, and I hope the newest MM's will be as good at providing for mine as they are in providing for yours, because the last two suuuuuuucked for my needs.

 

[LostSoul]

BUT, this is not really about the specifics anyway. You said the MM doesn't have those things, and I pointed out where it does. I've certainly met the necessary requirements for refuting that argument.

No. What I said is that the MM doesn't do this:

"The VerbNoun NounVerber lurks in dungeons and likes to kill adventurers because it is angry/hungry/evil/bored/insane/constipated. It likes to hang out with NounVerb WildShadowWarDarknesses, because they're BFF's."

I'm not trying to say that it doesn't do something like that now and then but as a whole it's an unfair characterization of the MM.

I think it's missing stuff - things like frequency, terrain, # appearing - but on the whole it's not too bad. There's a lot of usable fluff in it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not trying to say that it doesn't do something like that now and then but as a whole it's an unfair characterization of the MM.

Ah, so when you said this:

the MM doesn't do that sort of thing

You weren't actually talking about what the MM does or doesn't do, you were actually saying something more like "I don't think the MM does it that badly."

How onerous it is a subjective thing. To me, it's pretty onerous (which is why I called it out and mocked it). To you, it's less so. Certainly, rational people can differ on this conclusion.

I'm hoping that the newer MMs will satisfy my need for a monster manual to not have stuff like that in it better than the current MMs satisfy that need. With more attention to the fluff, I have reason to believe it will be much better.

I think it's missing stuff - things like frequency, terrain, # appearing - but on the whole it's not too bad. There's a lot of usable fluff in it.

So we basically agree that this newer format looks better than the old one, even if our opinion of the old one differs. I find it essentially un-usable (the noise far overwhelms the signal for me). Your experience is different. I think we can agree to disagree on that, and both be excited about the new stuff.

 

[Rechan]

At least, for it to act like a bat (e.g.: fierce to its prey as it swoops in out of nowhere, scared of other stuff)

At best, for it to act like a bat of myth (e.g.: inspiring dread and fear).

And if it's just meant to be another monster's sidekick, maybe we don't need a "monstrous bat" entry at all. Slap a statblock up with that other monster, where I will actually pay attention and use it because it supports that other monster better than it works by itself.

Certainly I don't expect berzerker-bats.

Honestly. There's really little reason for any monster with animal intelligence and lacking super powers* to attack PCs.

PCs are typically a group of 5, armored and armed. They travel in a group. And unless being stealthy, they make noise, which scares most real world predators (bears, wolves, etc).

Predators in the natural world typically do not attack a cluster of prey. They attack when one has been isolated. Or they attack the stragglers that lag behind the healthy ones (setting aside Spiders and antlions that pretty much eat anything that falls into their trap).

And if a predator is powerful enough to hunt humans, I can extrapolate that they would not go after the ones with noisy, shiny armor and big weapons. There are prey with clear defenses like this (porcupines, turtles, small cats) that predators ignore (unless they are designed to beat those defenses).

And, setting aside everything else. If a predator goes after prey, and the prey responds with such ferocity and hurts the predator, the predator backs the hell off. Food isn't worth being wounded; try to find a weaker one. So the first round where the PCs put a serious hurtin' in the predator, that predator should run.

But of course, none of that is exciting. It's reasons the Pcs should NOT encounter those animal level-int predators. And looking at an animal or anything else with such logic to see why it would not attack people isn't useful - because DMs are still going to throw them at PCs, defying all logic and precedent in the real world. Raise your hand if you fought rats and wolves as a first level PC.

So unless this bat is so big that it can pretty much swallow a man whole, there's little reason it would prey on men.

Can we not think too hard about it?

*Super Powers would constitute a magical beast. If the animal can vaporize 95% of those it encounters, then it's likely not going to blink. But the frequency of adventurers would influence the evolution of this monster's instincts.

 

[LostSoul]

You weren't actually talking about what the MM does or doesn't do, you were actually saying something more like "I don't think the MM does it that badly."

Yup.

So we basically agree that this newer format looks better than the old one, even if our opinion of the old one differs. I find it essentially un-usable (the noise far overwhelms the signal for me). Your experience is different. I think we can agree to disagree on that, and both be excited about the new stuff.

Oh yeah.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So unless this bat is so big that it can pretty much swallow a man whole, there's little reason it would prey on men.

Can we not think too hard about it?

Well, first, the monstrous bats in the MM1 do have super-powers, so they're kind of justified in preying on heavily armed adventurers. That's one of the big things about the 4e MM: there's nothing in there that isn't going to be able to prey on heavily armed adventurers.

Second, there's the option of them behaving like the mythic storybook creatures that bats can be, which is the better option IMO. It's more awesome in general to interact with a force of shadow and silence than to interact with something that wants to eat you or run away from you.

Third, in general, yes, a clear and unique motive is part and parcel of any force that is going to oppose the PCs in my games. For me, it's part of playing the role of the monsters as DM, just as the players play their characters: they find out what they want, and they try to achieve it with the means they have at hand. I find out what the monsters want, and I have them try to achieve it. Ideally, if the fluff is good, this brings them into some sort of conflict with PC's, and I have ways to resolve that conflict with die-rolling. 4e fluff has plenty of conflict, but not a lot of motivation.

Fourth, I see the problem with a lot of the MM's as mostly organizational problems. That's probably a topic worthy of its own thread, but basically, I think that monstrous bats probably don't deserve their very own entry with artwork and all. They're not a full encounter. They're part of other creatures' plots and plans, so put them with the other creatures. Put the fire bats with the efreet and the shadow bats with the wraiths and then organize the MM based on encounters, like "Here are the creatures, terrain features, maps, and rules you will need for an example encounter (or three) with Vampires," and have it be wolves and bats and rats and, of course, the vampire itself. There's also maybe some traps (a deadly iron maiden!) maybe some terrain features (eerie mist!), maybe some NPC's in the plot hooks (here's the father of an abducted girl, and a skill challenge for calming him down), maybe some allies nestled in there somewhere (here's ally stats for the local vampire hunter, and fluff on how to recruit him)...all the necessary components for an actual encounter. As it is, a DM who wants to run a vampire encounter has several different books, pages, and rules to cross-reference and compile onto a notepad before the game begins. This would add value to the books (Open to Pgs. 110-111, use that to run your encounter), this would add value to the DDI (if you're looking for a specific monster, you can either use the Index in your MM's, or you can search the Monster Builder), this would make the fluffy folks happy (each encounter is its own little plot hook machine)...about the only people it might hurt are those who really really want stat blocks for 250 pages. Those who are solid enough DM's with enough prep time that they can assemble everything together smoothly, and need quantity. For them, DDI, and perhaps Dungeon, would probably be the answer.

That's kind of a big change from what MM's have been, so I certainly don't expect all that. But if MM3 and the DS book can move more toward encounter groups and less toward individual monsters as the focus of the book, I'll be pretty happy with the direction.

But that's the biggest problem I see with those bats. They're not given a good motive, but they're not really WORTHY of a good motive. They're helpers for some other, more flavorful, more iconic monster, and THAT monster has a good motive.

 

[Rechan]

Well, first, the monstrous bats in the MM1 do have super-powers, so they're kind of justified in preying on heavily armed adventurers. That's one of the big things about the 4e MM: there's nothing in there that isn't going to be able to prey on heavily armed adventurers.

Rats. Because rats have such big agendas...

Second, there's the option of them behaving like the mythic storybook creatures that bats can be, which is the better option IMO. It's more awesome in general to interact with a force of shadow and silence than to interact with something that wants to eat you or run away from you.

But they'd need to be created to do so. I mean, a Bat of Fear and Dread and Silence and Shadow... should have powers relating to those. THe monstrous shadow bat in the MM is fairly... weak and not scary and just attacks. A mythical beast of shadow and fear the Shadowhunter Bat is not. So in this case, the fluff is not lining up with the stats.

Third, in general, yes, a clear and unique motive is part and parcel of any force that is going to oppose the PCs in my games.[/b]

Emphasis mine.

WotC is not marketing to your group. They cannot make a book that is For Kamikaze Midget's game. You know what you want, and you obviously want something specific and different. What about the guy who just wants a flaming bat to attack his PCs because they stumbled into the elemental chaos and he wants something indigenous to attack them? Or some wizard opens a portal to the Shadowfell and out flies shadow bats?

If you want something unique, specific to your game, the way you like it, then that's up to you to make it. YOU know what YOU want. Not the guys making the books. Besides. It's hard to make something Unique that's useful to everyone.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Rats. Because rats have such big agendas...

Sure take up space in the MM like they do.

But they'd need to be created to do so. I mean, a Bat of Fear and Dread and Silence and Shadow... should have powers relating to those. THe monstrous shadow bat in the MM is fairly... weak and not scary and just attacks. A mythical beast of shadow and fear the Shadowhunter Bat is not. So in this case, the fluff is not lining up with the stats.

The mythic-style bat would inspire some encounters. The "just attacks" bat probably should be some other monster's lackey. It doesn't need its own Lore entry, for instance. It needs to find a more interesting beast to piggyback on, or get out of the MM (IMO).

What about the guy who just wants a flaming bat to attack his PCs because they stumbled into the elemental chaos and he wants something indigenous to attack them? Or some wizard opens a portal to the Shadowfell and out flies shadow bats?

What's standing his way? Give him an Index or a DDI search and 30 seconds later he'll have the stats and that's just the same as it is right now. It's not any WORSE with more fluff. Dude can ignore the fluff if he doesn't want it. Statblocks are still there. Even if the stat block was a "Bat of Mythic Shadow" kind of creature, he could use that just as easily as the "just attacks" bat. Give him a page number for stats, and that is all he needs. More fluff doesn't stand in his way.

If you want something unique, specific to your game, the way you like it, then that's up to you to make it. Besides. It's hard to make something Unique that's useful to everyone. YOU know what YOU want. Not the guys making the books.

WotC identified this need in the market, not me. I just identified and vocalized my own need. I assume their market research is good enough to find out what most of their players want. The players (including me) wanted more fluff, I guess, so we're getting it.

Which, I predict, means monsters that have a better story than "bat that just attacks."

Which is exciting for me, and I can't imagine it being harmful for the dude who just needs a statblock RIGHT NOW, either.