MM2 sneak peak / new warforged art

[WhatGravitas]

Personally I think that the monster manual is a flawed concept. I think that the third core book to the DMG and PHB should be an Encounter Manual not a monster manual. Traps and terrain hazards, skill challenges, maybe even NPCs also belong there.

While this is a profound and probably very true insight (and I for one would love it), I also think that the idea of a "book of monsters" is just too much of an established and memorable trope to chuck it out. But then, the DM-focussed books (Open Grave, Manual of the Planes et al.) are pretty much going along with your idea.

Cheers, LT.

 

[OchreJelly]

Personally I think that the monster manual is a flawed concept. I think that the third core book to the DMG and PHB should be an Encounter Manual not a monster manual. Traps and terrain hazards, skill challenges, maybe even NPCs also belong there.

Gotta disagree with you for purely nostalgic reasons. Monster Manuals were my gateway to DND, and MM1 was my very first DND book, complete with "colored-in" pictures from the neighbor kid down the street.

That being said I really hope DMG2 expands on the traps / hazards. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there wasn't a separate trap book, and NPC book (Rogues Gallery?) although NPC splats may just wind up in campaign source books.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Except Derren hasn't said anything (in this forum at least) that was in the slightest way positive for months. So I think to be that single minded you have to be here simply for trolling.

Eh, to each their own. I'm willing to judge each case as a unique case. I don't have any need to ignore someone who is nothing but negative, 'cuz sometimes that negativity is constructive, at least to me. And if it's not, I haven't lost much. But everyone has different thresholds for it. I try to look behind the "hackslashdiablo" stuff and see what they mean, and what they mean is "an MM that is just 'stuff to fight' doesn't meet my game's needs."

I don't really understand why having monsters that say "Good" at the bottom is important to people. (Incidentally, I count 16 good monsters in the Compendium, most of which are potential allies like Sir Keegan.) I mean, there is literally no difference mechanically between a Good dragon and an Unaligned one. What's to stop you from calling the whole MM Good? (Granted, players probably won't accept Good devils, but hey.)

Some of it is that creatures that are or have been considered "good" don't have much of a place in the game anymore -- classic creatures that people aren't using. Pixies, as mentioned above. Any kind of celestial. An MM has, in previous editions, been more of a catalog of types of beings than a list of things that you can kill. 4e's MM has a different philosophy, and it excludes things that are interesting to interact with that you might not kill (though you may fight). Earlier MM's were more listings of encounter ideas. The 4e MM is a list of things to kill.

Some of it's the implied nature of the world under that design philosophy. In D&D as it exists now, there is no place for good-aligned celestials, or mischievous fey, or allied adventurers, or creatures you could recruit like the Ents in LotR. The D&D game is missing this broad swath of gameplay ideas, just missing it entirely, because the designers believe that such things don't add to the game at all. That kind of hard-line position can hurt games where these creatures and encounters DO add to the game.

And the last chunk of it is what WotC assumes and encourages in gaming groups. It's the closest thing they have to the gaming police: if we don't publish any Good creatures, there won't be any need for books about Playing Evil Parties, because D&D IS ALL ABOUT GOOD CHARACTERS!. This assumption isn't entirely accurate, but they're trying to MAKE it accurate -- trying to make one playstyle prominent over the others.

Personally I think that the monster manual is a flawed concept. I think that the third core book to the DMG and PHB should be an Encounter Manual not a monster manual. Traps and terrain hazards, skill challenges, maybe even NPCs also belong there.

Yes Please. One Million Times Yes. This would be a HUGE feather in the cap of 4e to step away from minis wargame play and toward a more diverse kind of game, just to provide encounters were murder isn't the best option.

Something tells me the 4e team doesn't really grok non-combat D&D at all, though.

Maybe it's time for me to propose something to DUNGEON....

 

[Pickles JG]

No, the idea is that you don't need things you don't fight. (What I call Diablo world design. If it moves, kill it).

Or that you do not need combat stats for things you do not fight maybe?

Still even I, profound crunch lover, think there is not enough fluff in the MM & the good creatures/organisations would benefit from some more fluff articles, even if they are not statted out for fights.

 

[OchreJelly]

Some of it is that creatures that are or have been considered "good" don't have much of a place in the game anymore -- classic creatures that people aren't using. Pixies, as mentioned above. Any kind of celestial. An MM has, in previous editions, been more of a catalog of types of beings than a list of things that you can kill. 4e's MM has a different philosophy, and it excludes things that are interesting to interact with that you might not kill (though you may fight). Earlier MM's were more listings of encounter ideas. The 4e MM is a list of things to kill.

I'll agree with you on much of this. Celestials in general (and I do consider the Solar iconic) have their place. Although you would have to admit that any edition of DND MMs have been strongly slanted toward things to kill.

Some of it's the implied nature of the world under that design philosophy. In D&D as it exists now, there is no place for good-aligned celestials, or mischievous fey, or allied adventurers, or creatures you could recruit like the Ents in LotR. The D&D game is missing this broad swath of gameplay ideas, just missing it entirely, because the designers believe that such things don't add to the game at all. That kind of hard-line position can hurt games where these creatures and encounters DO add to the game.

Now you lost me. Why can't unaligned fey be mischievous fey? If anything that's the alignment that most fits the idea of unpredictable and possibly hazardous creatures. And Ents, to me, embody unaligned. You have a group of entities (no pun intended) that don't want to get involved with any part of the war that are mysterious and not necessarily friendly to humanity -- that require much convincing by charismatic hobbits to get involved. Doesn't sound like "good" to me. And good allied NPCs exist everywhere in published adventures. They just don't usually have stat blocks unless they can be recruited by the PCs.

And the last chunk of it is what WotC assumes and encourages in gaming groups. It's the closest thing they have to the gaming police: if we don't publish any Good creatures, there won't be any need for books about Playing Evil Parties, because D&D IS ALL ABOUT GOOD CHARACTERS!. This assumption isn't entirely accurate, but they're trying to MAKE it accurate -- trying to make one playstyle prominent over the others.

Well to be fair, the design team was pretty up-front with their 4E tenant that the game was all about heroic good characters.

To me any "evil campaign" has always required a fair amount of work on the DM side with little support from published materials. From 3E I can only think of that Drow super-adventure offering an "evil party" path, and the Book of Vile darkness, but neither of these came out early in the editions life. I'd say give it time, but don't hope for a huge level of support. The Dragon article about Bane priests shows that they're testing the waters.

 

[chaotix42]

Oh man.

You just made me imagine fighting an Iron dragon in a canyon filled with mist. The dragon flies by the ledge the players are on, breathes on them, sucks them over the edge, and then flies off/ducks under a ledge.

Great idea! With clever maneuvering and dangerous terrain an iron dragon might be able to fill out his role pretty well.

@ ppaladin123 - What? Gold dragons aren't going to be in the MM2? I must have missed that tidbit...

---

So, are there going to be more sneak previews today, too?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Some of it is that creatures that are or have been considered "good" don't have much of a place in the game anymore -- Any kind of celestial.

I strongly disagree. The new celestials make much more sense to me. They are servants of the gods. They serve their god without question. This could be a good or evil god, so the celestials we have in the MM1 can be servants of good or evil. Being unaligned fits better with modern fantasy stories about angels. See shows like Supernatural for their treatment on angels.

An MM has, in previous editions, been more of a catalog of types of beings than a list of things that you can kill. 4e's MM has a different philosophy, and it excludes things that are interesting to interact with that you might not kill (though you may fight). Earlier MM's were more listings of encounter ideas. The 4e MM is a list of things to kill.

See above. Plus, any unaligned creature can be just as heroic and "good" as unaligned PCs. They can make for interesting non-combat encounters. Unaligned does not equal the Neutral alignment of past editions. All it means is that the creature is not inherently good. It can be corrupted through normal means. But that doesn't mean it can't be a "good" being. The actual aligned creatures, IMO, are those that can't be corrupted by normal means (if G or LG) or can never be redeemed* (if E or CE). I think they slapped Evil on too many creatures though.

Some of it's the implied nature of the world under that design philosophy. In D&D as it exists now, there is no place for good-aligned celestials, or mischievous fey, or allied adventurers, or creatures you could recruit like the Ents in LotR. The D&D game is missing this broad swath of gameplay ideas, just missing it entirely, because the designers believe that such things don't add to the game at all. That kind of hard-line position can hurt games where these creatures and encounters DO add to the game.

I completely disagree here. Celestial servants of good deities most assuredly exist. Mischievious fey don't have to be good alignment. NPC adventurers can be any alignment the DM chooses and can ally with the PCs no matter what their alignment is. And I agree with Ochre Jelly on Ents. IIRC in all editions of D&D Treants have not been good-aligned.

[sblock]One of the hooks in the second Paragon adventure is that the PCs ally with Orcus![/sblock]

And the last chunk of it is what WotC assumes and encourages in gaming groups. It's the closest thing they have to the gaming police: if we don't publish any Good creatures, there won't be any need for books about Playing Evil Parties, because D&D IS ALL ABOUT GOOD CHARACTERS!. This assumption isn't entirely accurate, but they're trying to MAKE it accurate -- trying to make one playstyle prominent over the others.

As already mentioned there has been support for evil PCs already. And the best thing about evil PCs? They will fight anyone who stands in the way of their goals, whether they be good, evil or unaligned.

Something tells me the 4e team doesn't really grok non-combat D&D at all, though.

I think this is a gross overgeneralization and quite unfair of you to say. The adventures I have run so far from the "4E team" have had plenty of opportunities outside of combat and give some good advice and background to make those opportunities interesting. The issue is that outside of combat things are boundless and trying to bind those ideas would require authors to cover infinite ground. Instead they provide DMs with some starting ground and encourage the DM to gel that into something interesting on his own. That's what differentiates tabletop from computers, the DM can go "off-program."

Maybe it's time for me to propose something to DUNGEON....

That would definitely be a constructive way to address the things you consider to be an issue.


*Never being too absolute of course, but a case of this happening should be a unique circumstance.

 

[Plane Sailing]

which makes the game look more like a world ripped from diablo 2

Derren, you are making valid points but I'd like you to drop the diablo references as that makes it look like you're spoiling for a fight along the lines of "it's a computer game/no it's not" which we don't want here.

Your discussion points can stand on their own without that. Thanks

 

[lutecius]

I like the iron golem but I find the bizarre feet of both the iron golem and clay golem very odd. Does anyone know if the picture is by Jeremy Jarvis? I'm having shocking flashbacks to some of his 3.5E pictures of yuan-ti and related creatures and it is not pleasant.

I tend to prefer the more "scultped" look to the clay golem, but this looks real nice.

Same here. I love JJ's colors and the picture is really well done (especially when compared to the amateurish shadar-kai art) but I prefer more classical looks: sculpted terra cotta and greek or medieval iron armor. The iron golem is just too mecha and insect-like. Also too similar to the MM1 guardian.

While I know that ability scores are hardly relevant for monsters in 4E, I just can't grok a huge dragon having a strength of 19. However, on that path lies arguments about gamist vs simulationist and that, in turn, leads to the dark side....

I think 4e has reached a point where ability scores are irrelevant fluff-wise. Distrusted or hated tieflings and drows get a charisma bonus to diplomacy. "Bellicose", "stinking" and "cowardly" goblins get a bonus to diplomacy, intimidation and will saves. All intelligent characters, no matter how slow and clumsy (low dex), get a bonus to reflex saves...

No, the idea is that you don't need things you don't fight. (What I call Diablo world design. If it moves, kill it).

I also think this was the intent but it doesnt bother me. It tells something about the default setting but alignment is easy to ignore in 4e.

What does bother me is the idea that everything meant to be fought has to be fugly. A dragon is dragon but I hate what they've done to angels, dryads or quicklings. Even as opponents it's their prettiness that made them interesting. Now they are just like other types of archons, hags and goblins.
I know their look has no mechanical impact but, added to ugly design for ugly monsters, it does affect the visual feel of the game.

Now phb2's art and design were on the whole better than phb1's, so there's hope for mm2. So far I like the golems and firbolgs but nothing really thrills me.

To me any "evil campaign" has always required a fair amount of work on the DM side with little support from published materials. From 3E I can only think of that Drow super-adventure offering an "evil party" path, and the Book of Vile darkness, but neither of these came out early in the editions life. I'd say give it time, but don't hope for a huge level of support. The Dragon article about Bane priests shows that they're testing the waters.

I haven't played an evil game since ad&d2 but I'm not seeing how it's more work on the dm side. Missions are pretty much the same, minus the moral dilemma: kill things, take their stuff, regardless of their alignments (that's more things and more stuff), kidnap the princess rather than save the princess. Do things in the name of evil gods instead good ones or for completely selfish reasons. The plot can be just as subtle and complex as in a normal game.

 

[OchreJelly]

I haven't played an evil game since ad&d2 but I'm not seeing how it's more work on the dm side. Missions are pretty much the same, minus the moral dilemma: kill things, take their stuff, regardless of their alignments (that's more things and more stuff), kidnap the princess rather than save the princess. Do things in the name of evil gods instead good ones or for completely selfish reasons. The plot can be just as subtle and complex as in a normal game.

To clarify, I meant the extra work comes from that fact that there isn't really any published adventures strictly for evil gaming, nor is there as many good critters in published material (not that I really think there needs to be). If you homebrew or customize published adventures to begin with, then it really doesn't take anything extra at all.

But I digress...

To get more topical, kudos to WoTC for embracing social media for their marketing of MM2. It's neat to see fan sites getting the exclusive pics, but I must ask: where is Enworld's exclusive pic???