MM2 sneak peak / new warforged art

[Kwalish Kid]

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).

If you're not going to fight it, why spend the time, effort, and space on including it in a book of things to fight? I mean, seriously, it's like some DMs out there aren't bright enough include a "monster" for interacting with the PCs unless it is also going to be involved in a fight.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That's something I'd write in portuguese, but english's not my native language so I keep posting like some school boy

It's comfortable to DMs who just trow enemies because "they are evil".

It's not that comfortable to DMs who build motivations and situations where good people are mislead to fight, have to fight each other to survive, etc.

But unaligned monsters are not evil. They haven't made any decision regarding evil or good. If you get into conflict with them, then you might find a way to bring them over to the good side, before you lose them to the bad side!

If for some reason good or lawful good characters come in conflict with each other without either side changing alignment, it should be far easier to find a compromise - you already have the common ground, believing in helping other people and not valuing yourself higher than others.

But you don't have that commmon ground with an unaligned creature. Negotiating a conflict with them is far harder, since you first need to find the common ground!

From the perspective of a good-aligned cleric - when you fight with an unaligned creature, the fight might be about its immortal soul!

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

And I do think it's totally fine to have that heavy slant. Most D&D encounters are about fighting monsters, and 4e, with it's focus on additional toys like minis, has a real incentive to focus on that. That's OK, but that shouldn't be the only thing out there.

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.

Good points, but I'm not really arguing specifics. Those are just examples of things that 4e's focus on "only things you can kill!" in MM's makes problems for. They might not've been particularly good examples, but there are no NPC's in the MM, and there are no allies in the MM, and there are no tricksters in the MM -- there are no creatures where fighting isn't the answer. This is less about alignment and more about encounter diversity (though alignment plays into that).

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

Which is part of the problem, I think. What my game of D&D is about should be up to ME to decide, not up to WotC to decide. That's why a breadth of challenges and creatures is important: I get to choose what to use and how to use it. Not them.

The new celestials make much more sense to me. They are servants of the gods.

OK, but they aren't "celestials" in the sense that I was using the term (as outsiders of pure Good like demons are outsiders of pure Evil). The game is missing that concept. That concept is interesting and useful to many gamers, in actual play, and that's not what 4e's angels are.

They can make for interesting non-combat encounters

And the concrete advice and stats for using, say, the new angels in a non-combat way is....where? Certainly not in the MM entry on them.

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.

Skill challenges and narrative assumptions are not up to the standards of what I need or am interested in, I'm afraid. It's sorely underwhelming.

The issue is that outside of combat things are boundless and trying to bind those ideas would require authors to cover infinite ground.

This is a strawman. There's no combat in Monopoly, but the board doesn't have to be infinite. There's no combat in dramatic movies, but they manage to not be infinite as well. It's entirely possible (and entirely enjoyable) to cover ground that doesn't have to do with stabbing things.

I will be kind of sad if the MM2 is just another statvomit like the MM1.

 

[Victim]

A lot of metallic dragons were good only by the alignment entry and not by described behavior. I seem to recall some of them kidnapping people for their amusement...

 

[Hellzon]

A lot of metallic dragons were good only by the alignment entry and not by described behavior. I seem to recall some of them kidnapping people for their amusement...

Not only dragons. Lots of "good" creatures were good only because they had white hats.

Much like some PC:s, really.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

They might not've been particularly good examples, but there are no NPC's in the MM, and there are no allies in the MM, there are no creatures where fighting isn't the answer.

Patently false statement. NPCs/Allies:
1) Human guard
2) Human rabble
3) Human lackey
4) Dragonborn soldier
5) Dragonborn gladiator
6) Dragonborn champion
7) Dwarf bolter
8) Dwarf hammerer
9) Elf archer
10) Elf scout
11) Halfling slinger
12) Halfling stout
13) Eladrin fey knight
14) Eladrin twilight incanter
15) Bralani of autumn winds
16) Ghaele of winter

Plus 17) Celestial charger

And the concrete advice and stats for using, say, the new angels in a non-combat way is....where? Certainly not in the MM entry on them.

The DMG.

Skill challenges and narrative assumptions are not up to the standards of what I need or am interested in, I'm afraid. It's sorely underwhelming.

Pot, kettle. I don't like throwing strawman claims out, but since you did. Diverting the topic to the quality of non-combat support when I was addressing claims of its absence...

This is a strawman. There's no combat in Monopoly, but the board doesn't have to be infinite. There's no combat in dramatic movies, but they manage to not be infinite as well. It's entirely possible (and entirely enjoyable) to cover ground that doesn't have to do with stabbing things.

So you want to be bound to limited and random actions in your non-combat D&D scenes like the limited and random actions available in Monopoly? I don't. Or maybe you'd like your non-combat D&D scenes bound to a script like a dramatic movie? Not me.

It is definitely possible and enjoyable to cover ground that doesn't have to do with stabbing things. The DMG and written adventures guide the DM in how to handle those scenes. But unlike Monopoly a D&D non-combat scene is driven by player actions, not a rigidly set form of rules. And unlike dramatic movies, players write the "script" as they go and the DM has to adapt. There is no way that an author can anticipate EVERY possible action a human being can devise in a non-combat situation, that is why those areas are left more open and the DM is given guidance.

I will be kind of sad if the MM2 is just another statvomit like the MM1.

While I admit there isn't alot of fluff in the MM1, there are still some hidden gems of creativity in the Lore section of each creature. So again your claims of "statvomit" are a gross (pun intended) overexaggeration, IMO, of what really exists within the book.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I see several disadvantages with this approach.

1. D&D Is, and always was a toolbox, especially now as the default setting is very vague. A PCs vs. everyone approach might fit a PoL setting, but there are many different types of setting in which this wouldn't be appropriate.

IMO, D&D is not a toolbox. It is not the Generic FRPG that people claim it is. You admit in your own point #4 that there is lore attached to the game. This wouldn't exist in a toolbox. d20 Modern was a toolbox. It had no implied setting. IMO that lack of implied setting is what made the game less popular (not to say that it is an inferior game, just not as popular as D&D). Being non-generic doesn't mean the system can't be used for other settings. Other setting merely require a setting guide that explains how the setting differs from the default.

2. It adds to the "4E = combat" impression. With its heavy empathize of tactical combat 4E creates this impression among many people, even those who like this system very much. This is especially "problematic" as 4Es stated goal is to attract new players, and what impression would they get of PnP RPGs when the world resembles a giant arena where its the PCs vs. everyone else not in a city wall?

The MM and DMG provides stats and guidance for people "inside the city walls." NPCs, both good and evil are available for the DM to use as enemies and allies. The only people adding to the "4E = combat" impression are those who refuse to sway their opinion based on the experience of actual 4E DMs and Players or those who enjoy hack and slash campaigns (which can be fun if that's what you're into).

3. If WotC, instead of making good monsters unaligned simply does not publish good monsters it makes it harder to do some scenarios. For example what if the PCs want to team up with an angelic host or other good "monsters"? The DM has to create the stats from the scratch. (Also that monsters are not really able to fight other monsters is also a problem. But that is a different issue). That would only be a problem in a few games, but as I said in 1, D&D is a toolbox and imo should support as many different styles as possible.

Why would the DM have to create from scratch? Take an Angel. Change Unaligned to Good or Lawful Good. There you go. Nowhere in the books does it state or imply that the DM can't choose the alignment of NPCs in the game. A creature being labelled as Unaligned just means that a typical member of that race is that alignment, individuals can vary. Nowhere is a creature labelled Always Good as in a prior edition. [I also think that the flavor of the new angels being servitors of their deity works well as Unaligned. They act in a manner befitting their master. They didn't choose to act that way, they are obligated to do so.]

4. It breaks the D&D lore. For example metallic dragons have always been good. Sure, 4E is about slaying sacred cows, but that cow didn't needed to be killed. If someone wanted the PCs to fight against metallic dragons he would have simply have such a dragon attack the party.

The new alignment system doesn't equal the old. The kept some terms the same, that's all. Unaligned beings can be just as good in life as any Good creature in previous editions. And as others have pointed out, metallic dragons may have been color-coded to Good in previous edition, but their backgrounds didn't match their alignment very well.

That metallic dragons are unaligned isn't the real issue. That is easily houseruled. The problem is that this is just a symptom of the real problem which is the design decision of not having (many) good monsters as there is no need for them. Imo there is.
I simply see no advantage in making traditional good monsters unaligned, but several disadvantages. No huge, gamebraking disadvantages, but (small, annoying) disadvantages nonetheless.

If it's just a small annoyance then I don't understand your vehemance on the subject.