GSL NPC/Monster Blocks

[CapnZapp]

Even the official adventures and dungeon adventures tend to change the powers and such to suit the needs of the particular monster/npc.

This.

Let's take the example town (Fallcrest) from the DMG as an example.

While Wizards of the Coast can add standard monsters (straight out of the MM) and include their stat blocks, you would not want to do that anyway.

Creating new NPCs (and unique monsters) is much cooler anyway.

In 3E, everybody would care if "Barstomun Strongbeard" was a properly built level 4 NPC Dwarf.

Not so in 4E. Who cares whether his "Dodge and Throw" or "Stand Your Ground" powers and properties are available to NPC Dwarfs (in the MM) or for that matter PC Dwarfs (from the PHB)? (I think one is a standard ability, the other a unique one - but again, this matters little)

If all we're trying to accomplish is a level 4 Fighter Dwarf PC I can do that myself (or rather, I can look it up in Strack's excellent Book of NPCs!).

In fact, if you are a publisher wanting my money for your adventure, I would expect you to create new cool NPCs.

Especially Elite or Solo NPCs - there are too few of those as it is. (If I want a level 11 Solo Necromancer, yes there happens to be one in Dungeon Delve, but that is probably the only one to choose from)

So really I think this so-called restriction is a blessing in disguise for us players. And not really a restriction for designers. (Yes, it's more work creating your own goblin types, but it isn't really a deal-breaker)

We all agree referencing monsters with just a page number is a pain - so this forces 3PP designers to come up with new and unique NPCs and monster variations.

Yes, this protects the Monster Manuals (which will remain the only common ground), but most importantly, we players can expect more unique NPCs with unique powers in adventures!

 

[Urizen]

This.

Let's take the example town (Fallcrest) from the DMG as an example.

While Wizards of the Coast can add standard monsters (straight out of the MM) and include their stat blocks, you would not want to do that anyway.

Creating new NPCs (and unique monsters) is much cooler anyway.

In 3E, everybody would care if "Barstomun Strongbeard" was a properly built level 4 NPC Dwarf.

Not so in 4E. Who cares whether his "Dodge and Throw" or "Stand Your Ground" powers and properties are available to NPC Dwarfs (in the MM) or for that matter PC Dwarfs (from the PHB)? (I think one is a standard ability, the other a unique one - but again, this matters little)

If all we're trying to accomplish is a level 4 Fighter Dwarf PC I can do that myself (or rather, I can look it up in Strack's excellent Book of NPCs!).

In fact, if you are a publisher wanting my money for your adventure, I would expect you to create new cool NPCs.

Especially Elite or Solo NPCs - there are too few of those as it is. (If I want a level 11 Solo Necromancer, yes there happens to be one in Dungeon Delve, but that is probably the only one to choose from)

So really I think this so-called restriction is a blessing in disguise for us players. And not really a restriction for designers. (Yes, it's more work creating your own goblin types, but it isn't really a deal-breaker)

We all agree referencing monsters with just a page number is a pain - so this forces 3PP designers to come up with new and unique NPCs and monster variations.

Yes, this protects the Monster Manuals (which will remain the only common ground), but most importantly, we players can expect more unique NPCs with unique powers in adventures!

Hey, thanks for the feedback!

You know, I think a big part of my issue with this, has been breaking out of the 3e mentality with regards to designing for 4th edition.

Some aspects of design for 4e are obvious and easy to do, like creating fun new monsters, hazards, magic items, etc. WOTC made it really easy to go about that process.

It's when I get into the other aspects, especially in world building or adventure writing, where I want, say, a dragonborn warlord, that I tend to shift back to that 3e mentality, where I sort of think people expect to see that dragonborn have specific abilities.

 

[CapnZapp]

Agreed.

I do notice how Wizards so far have kept up discipline rather well and not referred to allies and enemies in terms of player characters too many times. (This can't be a coincidence; it must be in their writer's guidelines...)

In the case for a Dragonborn, that is perhaps the best example: it is a new race which is most known for one very tangible ability: its breath power.

However, even here our inability to reproduce the PHB power is much less of a problem than you might think.

Why is your NPC a Dragonborn at all and not merely a human, or Orc? Probably because you have in mind some cool breath power, right?

But why also give him the "baseline" breath power (the PHB one)? Why not simply equip him with your extra nifty special breath power and ignore the PHB one?

The players won't notice - they'll see a Dragonborn breathing fire (or whatever). And they'll see him breathing it in a cool way that they can't do themselves. But that's okay - he's a major BBEG so why not? The point is: they'll never notice he can't do the PHB ability!

So why include it? The DM won't thank you (suddenly having an incomplete stat block with an inconvenient PHB reference). You're only fooling yourself into believing the restriction is a problem.

 

[Urizen]

Thanks so much for your advice.

This has been both very helpful and very enlightening.

The work I do will be better for it.