D&D 4E I may have had a 4e epiphany...

[Imban]

I hated the monster creation system in 4e at first, but that's because my brain was still stuck in 3.5e mode, where they had introduced pseudo-classed monsters in the most recent monster manuals, and that sucked, because it was going directly against one of the core concepts of 3.5e D&D. So when I heard it was going to be more common in 4e, well, screw that!

Well, turns out no monsters are built like PCs in 4e, so "pseudo-classed" monsters aren't just things which should have been written up as PCs but inexplicably were not. And that actually makes it okay.

...Other rules decisions they've chosen still bother me to the point where I associate 4e more with adventure board games than roleplaying games, but I've been cool with the monster thing for a few months myself.

 

[Blackeagle]

Hallelujah! He has seen the light!

But if you take it from the perspective of seeing the MM as "Big book of sample creatures", akin to, say, the "Enemies" books from Hero, it becomes a lot more interesting. The basic system for monster building is what matters; the MM entries are just things you can look at it to glean cool powers from or eyeball for balance.

That's pretty much how I'll be using it. My homebrew setting doesn't have any intelligent humanoid races (other than modified humans like lycanthropes and undead), outsiders, or intelligent magical beasts. That probably eliminates more than half the monsters in the MM. For me, the MM going to be just what you said, a huge list of powers to grab and a lot examples to balance against.

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, I've been wondering how many of the stat blocks in Keep on the Shadowfell are not in the Monster Manual...

I think it's really, truly, that easy to make new monsters. And, in theory, if you wanted to make too much work for yourself, you could make every single creature unique.

 

[Hussar]

Nicely put Lizard.

Now, the truly, TRULY nice thing about what Lizard has said is that he ascribes nearly no value judgment in his epiphany (would that be a 4epiphany?). He's simply describing the system as he sees it. It's always nice when we can see people, on both sides of the fence, do this.

 

[Blackeagle]

You know, this makes me wonder how much monster creation advice there will be in the DMG/MM. We'll certainly have plenty of examples to go off of, but will the books actually lay down some guidelines for some of these numbers? Something along the lines of, "An X level brute should have about this many hit points, an AC somewhere in this range, an attack bonus somewhere in this range," etc.

 

[malraux]

4e is a point-based system like GURPS or Hero...without the points. At least as far as NPCs are concerned.

I'd only amend this to say that while there aren't points, you are building to XP, level, and role values.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Edited since it appears to have come off snarkier than intended. Still, this thread may provide some background to the epiphany.

 

[Ulthwithian]

... wow, I never thought I'd say this, but the post someone said that the worst enemy of 4E was its own fans just came true to me.

Lizard publicly states he's changing his view on at least one major obstacle to 4E he has, and he gets statements claiming he's stupid?

I am pro-4E, and have been since I started posting on this forum. Read what I said. Nothing in it implies a bias towards 4E or against. I could have posted the same thing if, say, CadFan ran into a total derailing of his plans for 4E.

What is wrong with you people? You make perhaps the most egregious error one can possibly make in rhetoric. You start with the axiom, "I am right," a priori to any discussion. May I humbly suggest that starting with the axiom, "I might not be right," may be more proper?

The fact that Lizard did not raise to the bait thrown at him further enhances his standing, and lowers yours.

Lizard: I also love making characters. As a GM, I'm pretty sadly out-of-practice, and have always in the past felt too rushed to do a quality job on my game. There are other issues involved in that, but those are my own. Perhaps I could consult you on some of these issues and I can improve in my abilities?

 

[MaelStorm]

About the comment on 4E monsters/NPCs creation being "a point-based system without points". This is what I've been thinking a lot, since Mike Mearl made the comment about 4E being almost a classless system. IMO this does not only apply for monster creation, I think the whole 4E system was designed as "a point-based system without points" and this is what I find appealing because I love point-based games like GURPS a lot. This comment is greatly appreciated.

 

[Saitou]

You know, this makes me wonder how much monster creation advice there will be in the DMG/MM. We'll certainly have plenty of examples to go off of, but will the books actually lay down some guidelines for some of these numbers? Something along the lines of, "An X level brute should have about this many hit points, an AC somewhere in this range, an attack bonus somewhere in this range," etc.

WotC undoubtedly has those ranges, but I doubt they'll be providing anything like that to their readers in as many words.

Otherwise, why buy MM books at all?