Monster Manual: How Much Cut?

[Engilbrand]

I still don't get this idea that people have come up with of "If it's not explicitly in the stat block, then it doesn't exist." If it's in the flavor text as something that it can do, then it can do it. In 3.5, some people got nutty and said that flavor text didn't matter at all and only the stat block should be looked at. That works, but only up to a point. Think about the spell Rouse from the Spell Compendium. If I remember correctly, it was missing most of the stat block. But, the flavor text was something along the lines of "With a snap of your fingers, you awaken your allies." It was missing rules, but it was obvious what it did.
When it comes to the Pit Fiend, do they really need a part in the stat block that says "Every 99 years, the Pit Fiend can grant a wish."? In the stat block right next to its ability to control an ally and blow things up? I submit that it does not. It can easily be a line with the flavor text. It gives you the ability without being ridiculous about it.
I saw a great quote recently on here that I thought was perfect to this conversation.
If an NPC climbs a tree, and there are no PCs in the forest, do he have to roll?
The answer, of course, is no. Do you roll the checks for the blacksmith to make all of his weapons and armor? What about the Dwarves to craft their underground cities? No. Of course not. That's all just assumed to happen. Somehow, they do it. It's the same thing in 4E. Just because something doesn't give combat ready rules for its abilities doesn't mean that it doesn't have those abilities.
I agree that certain mundane things shouldn't be in the MM. A cat should never pose a threat to anything. Not even a first level Wizard. If you need stats for it, it would be simple to make them up. "Is it strong? No. Dextrous? Yes." Just do that until you're done. AND, it doesn't waste space that should have been used for a monster that the PCs will actually face.

 

[Wormwood]

Gotta disagree. To me, weirdo monsters like the beholder, umber hulk, carrion crawler etc ARE D&D. Ive been in love with them since I got my bendy neo-otyugh when I was a wee lad.

Yep. I'm less interested in offending some vague sens of believability as I am in having memorable encounters with memorable monsters.

Bring on the freaks.

 

[Lackhand]

Moreover, we're talking about combat -- or at least skill-related -- activities. The original question was "Why would you ever care about a cat's Balance check?" I showed why, using an example from real-world play, not an edge case I made up to prove a point. I also showed why combat stats for "normal" animals are useful.

When you talk of "moving non-combat skills into narrative", what do you mean?

If the 4e stat block for a cat is "Cats are agile.", with nothing to reflect this agility in play, it's useless when you want to determine if the familiar/animal companion/poymorphed wizard/beloved housepet can cross a narrow beam to escape a fire, run up a rope to get on a departing ship, or any other activity which tends to come up in adventure games, so we get back to "Make it up". Given that 4e gives everyone default skills, it's pretty easy to assume cats will be Trained in Acrobatics and Sneak (or whatever the 4e compressed skills will be called), and will likewise have a high dex (probably 14). Given that, you can fairly adjudicate things like the effects of dex buffing/debuffing on the cat, difficult surfaces, taking damage and trying to stay on (a familiar will have enough HP to survive some attacks), etc. A "purely narrative" description of a cat (no stats) does not give you this and turns the game into Amber (but without the ability to start play with your own private universe).

(snipped because I'm snippy?) -- Again, for what it's worth, I agree completely. I just feel like you're misrepresenting 4th edition's goals (and so do a few other posters here).

As for the initiative thing -- I didn't realize that it was a houserule, but apparently familiars and animal companions don't act on their owner's initiative. Damn, I didn't realize that, which changes my point somewhat

All monsters are *always* presented in a way which reflects how they'll 'most often' be used, though, so it would be nice if some thought were given to what, precisely, that was. Traps have a set of mechanics for when they trigger. Ambushes are not very different from traps. Nonetheless, their stat blocks are very different. My point is that they needn't be; all items have a weight, some monsters list their weight or how much they can carry. Some monsters get greater bits of information than others in semi-unique ways, and that's no bad thing.

Current game, we have a sorcerer who uses his familiar to deliver touch spells; initiative order matters; so do all of its other combat stats.

Arbitrary decisions that a monster does or doesn't "need" a stat because "Who would ever use it?" are almost guaranteed to result in bad or missing rules. Combat stats for the cat? What happens when one familiar attacks the other? Or when a raven attacks a druid in mouse form? Or when someone tosses Enlarge on a housecat, and you want the stats to properly scale? Or Awakens a porcupine? Or...

I'd actually *rather* resolve using the familiar to deliver touch attacks more abstractly, not using the cat's mechanics directly (because I'm tired of people with menageries taking extra turns, every turn).
How well does a cat serve as a pack animal? How fast can one tunnel? How much meat can they catch in a day? Some monsters specify this, others don't. A stat block that represetned cats cattily would be nice.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Gotta disagree. To me, weirdo monsters like the beholder, umber hulk, carrion crawler etc ARE D&D. Ive been in love with them since I got my bendy neo-otyugh when I was a wee lad.

I actually don't think you are disagreeing with Voss. He's not talking about the Beholder, Umber Hulk or Carrion Crawler, nor the Neo-Otyugh. Those are D&D classics, and not likely to go anywhere soon. What he means is the Digester (acid-spitting thing), Krenshar (cat-which-pulls-skin-off-it's-face), and Yrthak (sonic-shooting flying monster), all of which were pretty spectacularly unexciting, for my money. None of them remotely approach the ones you list for "cool" or "iconic-ness". Or even for "scary" in any way other than the most basic mechanical sense.

 

[Lizard]

If you, like most people, including me, would keep a few things from my list, that's cool, but do you really think that my list doesn't include a very large amount of "trimmable" monsters? To be reintroduced later, sure, but not "basics" or "essentials" or "primary" monsters, or however one wants to put it. Please recall too, that it should be much easier to make up monsters in 4E than 3E.

I basically consider such a list (regardless of what's on it) nigh-pointless, because every monster you think of as "fat" is someone else's "meat", and vice-versa. There's no objective way to decide if a monster is "worth keeping" or not. A marginally more useful exercise would be a list of "iconic" or "core" monsters, because we can at least measure how many different rulebooks/incarnations of the game the critters appeared in. Everything outside that list is pretty much whim...

For example, I think in 8 years of playing D&D, I've used one giant (Hill) in one encounter. So, to me, giants are "fat" -- they rarely enter into the types of games I run. Other people, perhaps with fond memories of G1-3, have giants under every bridge. OTOH, I make a lot of use of different humanoid types -- I like to have orcs, kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, etc, often with high-level PC-classed leader types. Other DMs, I know, HATE the "palette swap" monsters and have just one kind of humanoid with a lot of different cultures. Different tastes.

Based on the 4e design goals, I think we'll see a heavy emphasis on "Monsters with cool combat powers", including the addition of "special attacks" to creatures which never had them before. This can be done well -- witness how wolves in 3x are notable because their nasty, nasty, trip attacks -- or it can be done poorly, and we won't know until June. 4e has five monster manuals to pick from, so there's a lot of potential for a unique blend of "core" creatures. They have also stated in some podcast that some formerly 'core' creatures (like frost giants) will be deliberatelyheld back for MM2+, in order to help sell the notion that the annual "core" books are, in fact, truly core, not just "supplements".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A marginally more useful exercise would be a list of "iconic" or "core" monsters, because we can at least measure how many different rulebooks/incarnations of the game the critters appeared in.

If you want to make that list, go for it, sadly I don't have access to the resources required for such a thing. I think your claim that my list is just "whim" though, is made to look very silly by the number of people who've agreed with the vast majority of my list (or all of it)

 

[Lizard]

How well does a cat serve as a pack animal? How fast can one tunnel? How much meat can they catch in a day? Some monsters specify this, others don't. A stat block that represetned cats cattily would be nice.

I have no objections to "The default stat block represents things which all creatures should be able to do. If special things such as pack weight, tunneling, etc, are not mentioned, assume the creature either can't do them or does so as indicated by default stats." (For example, a cat might have a Strength of 1. That tells you how much it can carry (not much). Why would you care at all? For that game where you've been shrunk down and the Strength 1 cat is now capable of hauling your teeny-tiny loot. Yes. IT'S HAPPENED TO ME.)

Honestly, what I'm guessing we'll see in 4e is something like "Small mammal" (full stat block) with one line or so each of mods for cat, dog, weasel, etc.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I actually don't think you are disagreeing with Voss. He's not talking about the Beholder, Umber Hulk or Carrion Crawler, nor the Neo-Otyugh. Those are D&D classics, and not likely to go anywhere soon. What he means is the Digester (acid-spitting thing), Krenshar (cat-which-pulls-skin-off-it's-face), and Yrthak (sonic-shooting flying monster), all of which were pretty spectacularly unexciting, for my money. None of them remotely approach the ones you list for "cool" or "iconic-ness". Or even for "scary" in any way other than the most basic mechanical sense.

Ditch the chuul though? Darkmantles? Chaos Beats? A lot on that list is pretty interesting, and no more goofy than the beholder, a creature which is a walking (ok, flying) pun.

And why? To make sure we have room for a bunch of animals that probably shouldnt even exist in a fantasy world? Seriously, how the hell does a bear compete with a bulette, ankheg, etc?

 

[Wormwood]

hose are D&D classics, and not likely to go anywhere soon.

I wonder---are the Umber Hulk and Beholder classics because they've been played for 30 years, or have they been played for 30 years because they are classics?

 

[Lackhand]

I have no objections to "The default stat block represents things which all creatures should be able to do. If special things such as pack weight, tunneling, etc, are not mentioned, assume the creature either can't do them or does so as indicated by default stats." (For example, a cat might have a Strength of 1. That tells you how much it can carry (not much). Why would you care at all? For that game where you've been shrunk down and the Strength 1 cat is now capable of hauling your teeny-tiny loot. Yes. IT'S HAPPENED TO ME.)

Honestly, what I'm guessing we'll see in 4e is something like "Small mammal" (full stat block) with one line or so each of mods for cat, dog, weasel, etc.

I must be really unable to express myself today -- I agree completely with this post in its entirety.

It's happened to me, too