MM4 Table of Contents up

[BryonD]

Dude, don't you get it? They've been seeding D&D releases since Angelfire(I think?) with the new MM4 stuff.

Sure, but monsters are one thing. Just slapping a class on a standard race is another.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Sure, but monsters are one thing. Just slapping a class on a standard race is another.

Drow are technically monsters, though, right? I would definitely agree with you if they were including classed dwarves and elves.

 

[Drowbane]

I shall reserve judgement until I'm holding in hand at my FLGS contemplating whether to buy or not to buy.

There are just too many other new books (PHB II, Complete Psi...) to buy to seriously consider more monsters. Especially if the majority of the book is Templated and Classed versions of other MM monsters (I have drow of all types already stated out, tyvm!).

Lolth-Touched Drow Ranger

Hey cool!! Its the Anti-Drizzt!

Drow are technically monsters, though, right? I would definitely agree with you if they were including classed dwarves and elves.

Elves and Dwarves are also technically monsters, my MM has at least 4 subraces of each.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Elves and Dwarves are also technically monsters, my MM has at least 4 subraces of each.

Sorry, I should have been clear...I'm defining monster as something that appears only in the Monster Manual, not as a player race in the PHB.

 

[BryonD]

Drow are technically monsters, though, right? I would definitely agree with you if they were including classed dwarves and elves.

Meh, I don't see that technicality as being relevant to the topic.

A CE dwarf cleric is just as much a villian as a drow ninja. Labeling one a "monster" and the other not seems pointless.

Just slapping a class on an existing race and calling it worthwhile is my point, whether the race in question is in the PH or not is not meaningful.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Meh, I don't see that technicality as being relevant to the topic.

A CE dwarf cleric is just as much a villian as a drow ninja. Labeling one a "monster" and the other not seems pointless.

Just slapping a class on an existing race and calling it worthwhile is my point, whether the race in question is in the PH or not is not meaningful.

Umm, yes it is. You're talking about a monster manual, not a player's handbook, so distinguishing between monsters and player races is absolutely meaningful to a discussion about what should and shouldn't be included in each book.

Mostly I was refuting your assertion that drow are a standard race, which they clearly are not, they are a monster. If you think such labels are pointless, why did you label them to begin with? So you're either against all templated and classed monsters, or you're not. If you're not, then drow are a perfectly acceptable monster candidate for classes and templates.

 

[BryonD]

Umm, yes it is. You're talking about a monster manual, not a player's handbook, so distinguishing between monsters and player races is absolutely meaningful to a discussion about what should and shouldn't be included in each book.

Wow, I just can't believe that nit is even worth picking.

Mostly I was refuting your assertion that drow are a standard race, which they clearly are not, they are a monster. If you think such labels are pointless, why did you label them to begin with? So you're either against all templated and classed monsters, or you're not. If you're not, then drow are a perfectly acceptable monster candidate for classes and templates.

You have completely missed the point.
I'm not the one getting hung up on labels.
I can not believe you actually think refuting my "claim" that drow are a standard race even begins to touch on the point.

Would it help if I had used the term "common"? The point of using the term standard had nothing in the world to do with core PC access. Adding ninja levels to a drow is no more complicated than adding ninja levels to a dwarf. It is a basic, and extremely simple "standard" thing to do. In that sense a drow is just as standard as a dwarf. As opposed to say a mind-flayer or dragon or other race with built in class levels. I still do not consider those to be complicated enough to merit a book on adding classes. But the process in that case is not standard.

I'm also unclear on where the term "standard" actually came to mean "core PC class". Your arguement seems to be based on ignoring the obvious contextual meaning and forcing an obtuse alternate.

That said, I never remotely stated that I have any problem with templates and classes. I did say that I expect a Monster Manual to have new monsters. The key word is "new", not "monster" or any overly picky disection of the word "monster". Adding ninja levels to a drow does not make a "new" monster.

Is it "wrong" to put standard (yes, standard) classed races in a book called "Monster Manual"? No. I'm not saying that. Does the term "Monster Manual" put a different expectation in my mind? Yes, I am saying that.

But that really isn't that big a deal. That was just a comment. The real issue to me is which of these makes sense:
a) Spend 5 minutes making a drow ninja of whatever level and gear I prefer

or

b) Give WotC money for a statblock of a single drow ninja 4?

I don't see why I should want to pay for something so simple and standard.

 

[Mercule]

The Vitreous Drinker I find enticing. It's an undead servant of Vecna that steals creatures ability to see with their tongue (OK, that sounds pretty lame here, but it actually reads pretty interesting).

Had to read that twice and wanted to share my misread: I thought you meant that they render blind creatures who use their tongues to see (snakes??). That'd be a pretty limited scope ability. If it's an eyeball-eating mohrg, then, yeah that sounds cool. Actually, just based on the name, that one should have made it on my "interesting" list.

 

[Mr.Black]

I think the dragonspawn would make good minions for dragons. I just wish they had had the dragon subtype instead of the monstrous humanoid subtype.

I'm wary of the classed NPCs. It's easy to make NPCs that are suboptimal in build. If I see that the Orc Warlord took Toughness for a feat I'm going to be royally ticked off.

So far the dragonspawn have been decent challenges for their CRs, which is a good sign for the other monsters in the book.

I may just buy this book if the four demons (five if the demonhive is an actual demon) are decent.

 

[Drowbane]

...It's easy to make NPCs that are suboptimal in build. If I see that the Orc Warlord took Toughness for a feat I'm going to be royally ticked off...

No joke bro, I was reading a Dungeon module the other day where these NPCs (Fighter 3) used all of thier feats to take Toughness...