New Monster Swordwing!

[GoodKingJayIII]

A standard critical hit is simply max damage for the normal attack. For the swordwing, a normal armblade attack is 2d6+9, so max damage is 21. Certain weapons, including the swordwing's armblade, do extra damage on a critical equal to the damage of the weapon, which is 2d6 for the armblade. So a critical hit with a swordwing's armblade is 21 (regular crit) + 2d6 (extra damage). It's just listed as 2d6+21 because that's how everything involving dice and static numbers is written.

Aha! So really, it's doing max damage (critical) plus bonus damage (specific property). Cool, makes sense. Thanks!

 

[mmu1]

I hate insect-themed hive-dwelling enemies.

We must have spent literally a year and a half of real-time in our online Shadowrun game dealing with the Bug City event - Chicago under quarantine, with insect-spirit invaders and their freakin' queens coming in from another plane, trying to possess valuable hosts and eat the rest. It was a really fun story arc, but it's over now, and I don't want to fight another hive ever again.

That said... I'm with those who think that this isn't a very "Epic" enemy. It gets free attacks vs. shifting enemies? So does a 1st level Fighter. The only real difference is that it can fly, but that's something PCs are (IIRC) supposed to get access to in the Paragon tier. Bottom line, it's an orc with higher numbers.

 

[2eBladeSinger]

A swordwing nest by rights ought to be a thing of terror in the Underdark, a place where even drow and mind flayers fear to tread. Any nearby community, even a drow city, would fear the arrival of a swordwing "collector." Lesser races like troglodytes and kuo-toa might worship them as gods and offer up sacrifices in hope of appeasing them.

This is good fluff, hope something like this is in the MM and their extistence as Epic-Level threats is justified by more than just numbers.

The problem of flufflessness seems to be persistent which may be a good sign- they are simply showing us how the monsters work mechanically and saving the fluff for the book... or it could be very very bad.

They are from the Far Realm; they fly and have no darkvision, yet they choose to live in the Underdark because... the rent is so cheap? It's like a race of tree-dwelling Great Whites.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why preview this seemingly boring critter?

One of my larger remaining fears about 4e is that the Monster Manual will be chock full o' "4e's Phantom Fungi" like this -- monsters that are just overwhelmingly dull. And so get under-used because of it.

So perhaps they previewed it because it is exemplary.

The "collecting" thing is no great shakes. It's a stock "evil villan" plot than any semi-intelligent creature can use to make it seem kind of scary. I guess SOMETHING needed that plot, but it's more effective at lower levels because "oh noes it collects things" isn't really all that scary or world-shaking in any way.

It's a fine combat challenge, I imagine -- I'm glad monsters are getting "defender-ish" mechanics, really. But aside from "kill things and take their stuff," it doesn't really do anything.

And, really, that's a freakin' cardinal sin for a monster book.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And, really, that's a freakin' cardinal sin for a monster book.

That's pretty much it is, isn't it.

God I hope you're wrong about these being a good example of a 4E monster. Lovely art, but the monster's entire concept is basically not scary, threatening, epic or anything, and all they really do is hit stuff, and they only justify their epic status via their stats.

I mean, yawn city. Wake me up again when they next preview a monster that's actually, y'know, even moderately interesting or scary.

I do like the mechanics, but honestly, I'm not wasting my player's time with a monster that conceptually dull.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

One of my larger remaining fears about 4e is that the Monster Manual will be chock full o' "4e's Phantom Fungi" like this -- monsters that are just overwhelmingly dull. And so get under-used because of it.

It certainly feels a lot like a Phantom Fungus to me.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm not worried about monsters in the MM being mechanically dull. The examples we've seen range from simple "roll to attack, roll damage" monsters, like the swordwing, to complex and tactically-oriented monsters, like the pit fiend and the malebranche. While I like the complex fights, I also want an array of simple brute monsters available. 4E seems to be striking a nice balance in this regard.

Conceptually dull... well, we'll see. My opinion so far is mixed. Some of the conceptual stuff we've seen is excellent, some is mediocre, a few things are just horrid. So far I'm guardedly optimistic about the fluff side of 4E; I'm sure I'll need to reflavor some things, but it doesn't look like I'm going to have to give the entire book a makeover.

 

[MinionOfCthulhu]

I am with most of the posters here: These strike me as somewhat boring and uninspired. I do kind of like the fact that they like collecting things though, so if I do use them in a campaign, they're going to seven foot tall, insectoid, blade-armed nerds.

Swordwing: Here you go, boss, a collection of hearts.
Crownwing: You fool! Look at this one! It's not in mint condition! And this magic sword doesn't have its scabbard! It's worthless if its out of its package!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Conceptually dull... well, we'll see. My opinion so far is mixed. Some of the conceptual stuff we've seen is excellent, some is mediocre, a few things are just horrid. So far I'm guardedly optimistic about the fluff side of 4E; I'm sure I'll need to reflavor some things, but it doesn't look like I'm going to have to give the entire book a makeover.

There has been some good fluff, but most of that good fluff has been "supplementary." The info about the formorians, the stuff about the archons, all of that is good, but, so far, it doesn't look like it's going into any of the core rulebooks. Every excerpt and preview and photographed page from the MM we've had so far has been monumentally boring, even going so far as to actively remove interesting things about the monster (the bodak is the example I keep bringing up, but the phane isn't a bad example, either).

The interesting stuff is in the DDI.

If this perception is accurate, I think it's really boneheaded, and whoever made that decision needs to be bludgeoned with a 13-foot tall beholder statue.

A monster book should always inspire you to use the mosnters in interesting ways, and give you the guidelines that you'll need for running them in those ways. One of those ways, the most important of those ways, is absolutely combat. But combat is not the only way.

The "collection" angle on this guy is pretty weak sauce. The "predatory" angle on the phane is kind of sad. The "it likes to kill" angle on the bodak is hilariously awful.

I think the team will succeed at whatever they really want to succeed at, I'm mostly concerned that somewhere, they decided that giving the DM interesting ideas of plots in which to use the monster was not something they really wanted to worry about for the MM.

I do think it's a big problem, because the monsters in 3e that worked that way were rather universally mocked -- phantontom fungi and ythraks and digesters and whatnot. These were not good monsters, though their mechanics were fine. These were poor monsters because they didn't give the DM any reason to want to put them in an encounter.

Really, I'm kind of ranty about this because this was one of my FIRST fears about 4e, back when they were proud of how fast and easy mosnter customization was, and I've only seen things that would confirm the fear.

*Sigh*. It's a good thing Necromancer is on point.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

*Shrugs shoulders* Maybe I am just the odd one out. But I have always found it is the mechanics and artwork that inspired me not the fluff.

Whenever I made up encounters or the way monsters worked, I never once look at the fluff the monster has, since well it is my world, so the monsters will work my way.