MM4 Table of Contents up

[Soel]

C'mon, flying extraplanar shark thing? Someone in 2e was smoking something funky when they thought that thing up. It doesn't have anything remotely noteworthy about it other than it's a stupid, stupid monster.

The Planescape version was different than the 3e FF one, and nowhere near as hokey! When I first saw the one in the FF, I laughed. Just as I did with the Senmurv and Fossergrim pics. It's all about the artwork.

 

[BryonD]

I'm sure it does. Point me to one.

I'm not going to get into playing that game.
It isn't "a thread" I can point to.
It is a trend of the same person saying the same thing, just substitute the newest product.

I never said WotC can do no wrong. I tend not to bother wasting my time ranting about products--from WotC or anyone else--that I dislike. I have better things to do. For the record, I can think of several books out from WotC recently that I wasn't fond of. I can think of several design decisions I'm not happy with. But it does nobody any good for me to harp on those, does it?

Actually, presenting a balanced perspective would provide the "good" of added credibility.
When someone who gets paychecks from publisher only has gushing things to say about the products that publisher produces, the fairness of the assements being presented naturally become suspect.

It also isn't fair to discard all negative response as "rants".
Particularly in the case of WotC, trying to provide constructive negative feedback can be very valueable. Whereas simply being a "yes man" is counter-productive. Even if you only "yes man" when you truly like something and are simply quiet at other times.

Yes, 90+% of negative reponse here IS certainly rants. But that doesn't mean valuable negative feedback is unallowed. To the contrary, an added voice of reasoned constructive criticism would be a boon.

I do get sick and tired of people who whine and bitch that things aren't done exactly the way they'd like, and that all other ways of playing the game are wrong.

Absolutely.

I hold industry people to a higher standard than random nobodies on a message board.
If I'm wrong for that, then I'm wrong. But I still do.

Or hadn't you noticed that my arguments in this thread are not made against everyone who has expressed the slightest negative opinion of this book, but merely against a certain vocal fringe?

I'm certain that is true.

Look, I'm not trying to just push buttons to agitate.
If you see nothing in this but offense, then I apologize.
But, sincerely, I did not sit down and make this up on the spot.

 

[Umbran]

Question: Wouldn't the Draconions from dragonlance be an example of where this has been tried before?

I don't think so. As I recall them presented in the original modules (and fiction), they tended to travel in groups of all the same type, all with the same abilities. The draconians were more akin to your standard humanoids in that regard. Tactically, then, the dragonspawn are something a bit different.

 

[MerricB]

I don't think so. As I recall them presented in the original modules (and fiction), they tended to travel in groups of all the same type, all with the same abilities. The draconians were more akin to your standard humanoids in that regard. Tactically, then, the dragonspawn are something a bit different.

Draconians also have a lot of baggage:
* They don't breed (yes, I know they've tried to fix this)
* They were created for an atypical D&D world
* They were created from good dragon eggs.

I like Dragonlance. I really, really like Draconians... but I'd have a far better time of integrating Dragonspawn into my Greyhawk campaign than Draconians. And, in fact, I am. The PCs have already had one Dragonspawn encounter (Redspawn Arcaniss), and there will be more to come.

Cheers!

 

[D.Shaffer]

Cool, an official Maquahuitl.

Which monster wields it?

Considering its location in the TOC, it looks to be something one of the lizardman tribes use.

 

[MerricB]

One of the WotC designers openly replied to my Redspawn Arcaniss CR comment that he doesn't have to playtest monsters, only compare them to existing ones, so I'm not assuming anything.

Even if you do playtesting yourself (with your group(s)), a designer shouldn't be the only person to playtest his own work, much like a programmer shouldn't be the only person to test their own code.

Look at the list of playtester credits in the 3.0 core books. Now tell me if the same amount of playtesting is going on with the current products.

There has been a big change in how things work. Playtesting - not so much.

However, the process isn't Designer -> Editor -> finished product. It's Designer -> Developer -> Editor -> finished product. So, it isn't like the designer is playtesting it; there is a development stage (which may include playtesting).

Cheers!

 

[Sammael]

However, the process isn't Designer -> Editor -> finished product. It's Designer -> Developer -> Editor -> finished product. So, it isn't like the designer is playtesting it; there is a development stage (which may include playtesting).

AFAIK, the process never was Designer -> Editor -> finished product. It was more like Designer -> panel discussion about the design -> Playtesting -> Designer -> Editor -> finished product.

 

[Cam Banks]

Draconians also have a lot of baggage:
* They don't breed (yes, I know they've tried to fix this)
* They were created for an atypical D&D world
* They were created from good dragon eggs.

I like Dragonlance. I really, really like Draconians... but I'd have a far better time of integrating Dragonspawn into my Greyhawk campaign than Draconians. And, in fact, I am. The PCs have already had one Dragonspawn encounter (Redspawn Arcaniss), and there will be more to come.

I'm sure dragonspawn have similar baggage, all of which is easily filed off. None of the above are inherent in the monster statistics.

Krynnish dragonspawn are corrupted humans created by the Dragon Overlords (one of each chromatic type) with mild sorcery that will stack with sorcerer levels, a breath weapon, explosive death throes, etc. It's also a template, somewhat like the half-dragon, although Dragonlance doesn't have half-dragons (so it's something of a replacement).

I use white dragonspawn extensively in my current project for Sovereign Press, Price of Courage, which ends with the heroes taking on the last of the Dragon Overlords, Frost. I've got so many weird and wonderful draconic things in the book it's not funny. While it's cool that there are white dragonspawn in MMIV, I find it curious that the DL material (even with serial numbers filed off) is never utilized elsewhere by WOTC.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Cam Banks]

I don't think so. As I recall them presented in the original modules (and fiction), they tended to travel in groups of all the same type, all with the same abilities. The draconians were more akin to your standard humanoids in that regard. Tactically, then, the dragonspawn are something a bit different.

They're a lot more flexible than that, and are being used in interesting ways in current novels and gaming supplements for DL. It's even better now that we can add class levels to them.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Psychic Warrior]

I'm pretty interested in this book. It is a departure from the traditional model of the Monster Manuals to date and that is sure to rankle people in their comfort zones. But honestly if it was just 200 "new & unique" monsters I probably would have ignore this book. With the extras they are trying out here I am 90% likely to pick this up.