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

[Just Another User]

Lizard, I agree on your analogy, but I still don't like 4e monsters. Outside of combat they are just too boring, and even in combat they are one trick ponies. 4e monster are black box with level appropriate hp, attack and defense, then you attach powers appropriate to the specific monster, it is a troll? regeneration and rend, a giant spider? web and wall climbing, a dragon? breath and flying, etc. but in some way in the end they all feel as the same monster.

Just to clarify, I wasn't crazy about 3e monsters, too, if I had to pick, my favorites would be the monsters from 2e, sure the stats was very similiar to 4e, but they had those in their description those (sometime) nice pieces about society, ecology and stuff that make them feel something more than a box full of xp.

All IMHO, of course.

I'm sure 4e will be a nice game, I just happen to not like it.

 

[Jhaelen]

Just to clarify, I wasn't crazy about 3e monsters, too, if I had to pick, my favorites would be the monsters from 2e, sure the stats was very similiar to 4e, but they had those in their description those (sometime) nice pieces about society, ecology and stuff that make them feel something more than a box full of xp.

Well, mechanically, 1E and 2E had a lot more of identical and almost identical monsters. They were only different because of their society, ecology, and background description.

3E had more ways to make monsters mechanically different from each other. 4E will introduce truly unique mechanical differences.

I am quite glad, I still have my 2E monster manuals because they add depth to the monsters that is lacking in 3E & 4E (except for those that got their own books like 'Lords of Madness').

But in the end, what I really want to see in a monster manual is a large number of monsters that make for exciting combats. If the 4E MM1 had only 50 different monsters but each with full background info, I'd be pissed.

 

[Psion]

does this mean I have to edit my ignore list?

Does this mean I can no longer rely on Lizard carrying my 4e-hate torch and have to start making regular appearances in the 4e forums?

Seriously, I sort of understood it, because Spycraft 2.0 does the same thing. But it spycraft, it's sort of shorthand, and you still are able to make a villain as a "full NPC" if that's what you want; the abbreviated method is taken to be just that, an abbreviated method.

 

[Mouseferatu]

and you still are able to make a villain as a "full NPC" if that's what you want; the abbreviated method is taken to be just that, an abbreviated method.

Psst! Hey, Psion!

You can do that here, too, if that's what you really want. Don't tell anyone.

 

[jeffhartsell]

Once it hit me that, basically, every monster/NPC in 4e is effectively built from scratch, not according to a structured system (other than role/level guidelines), my perspective changed dramatically.

Fascinating.

I'll comment before reading the entire thread. I really agree and I also approached 3e as you did. In 3e I liked having "creature characters" I could use as baselines to make interesting enemies. I'm a fan or orcs and undead and would use those "types" quite a bit.

Anyway, I'm probably going to be starting a 4e Eberron campaign soon and 3 possible main bad guys for chapter 1 are a half-orc bandit king, a goblin chieftain, and an Aerenal elf blood of vol necromancer. So, these will probably end up as level 1-3 solo mobs. In 3e they would be uninspiring really because they would just be PCs. Fine for verisimilitude, but boring overall.

With 4e I can make them interesting NPC creatures with cool abilities. PCs might moan about why they cannot do the same thing, but in the end it is because they are not villains.

The half-orc bandit king will be a version of the orc chieftain with some rogue tossed in. Use the gobo traits for the goblin chieftain and maybe some warlord. For the necromancer use wizard and cleric with some necrotic damage and some "when enemies become bloodied" as well as other fancy "solo" abilities. NPCs don't need loads on abilities to make them cool, just a few signature abilities and hit points if they are solos.

The story + environment + a few cool mobs is what makes an encounter memorable.

 

[Lizard]

Does this mean I can no longer rely on Lizard carrying my 4e-hate torch and have to start making regular appearances in the 4e forums?

In two hours, I run KOTS. We'll see how it goes.

 

[Psion]

Psst! Hey, Psion!

You can do that here, too, if that's what you really want. Don't tell anyone.

Are you under the impression that you are telling me anything I didn't know/assume?

 

[Tervin]

But in the end, what I really want to see in a monster manual is a large number of monsters that make for exciting combats. If the 4E MM1 had only 50 different monsters but each with full background info, I'd be pissed.

So true.

Honestly, I am not at all interested in MM fluff, because I see the fluff as my job as DM. A little hint as to what kind of environment they were thinking of when they created the creature is nice, anything more I will want to change anyway to make it fit with the world I am using.

And what if DMs don't want to make all those adjustments themselves? Then they should just buy one of those settings out there and see what they say about the monsters. IMHO setting guides should have fluff, core books should have crunch. Books that try to do both tend to fail.