Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nyeshet" data-source="post: 3730567" data-attributes="member: 18363">Interesting page count, but I am guessing that - except for animals / insects - it will work out to one page per monster. Recall that in 3e's PHB about 5-6 pages covered 30+ animals / insects. So, unlike later MMs, I think the first 4e MM will return to the 'one page per monster' set up, with animals covered as several per page, and perhaps a few pages detailing templates, etc. So perhaps 250 monsters at one per page, ~50 animals, insects, etc at 6-10 per page (5-10 pages), maybe 2-3 templates per page for 2-3 pages, and the remaining 5-15 or so pages for the introductory explanations of the stat blocks, the index at the end, etc. Don't forget, also, that they may be including quarter to half page variants of the same monster in this, so it may work out to 3/4 page for a monster, and 1/4 page for a variant (equivalent to the classed monsters, but using different roles instead) - thus having "two" monsters on one page, or something similar to this. It may only be that there is about 150 actual non-animal monsters, with most of them having 1-3 variant roles that are being counted as if they were separate distinct monsters, thus upping the monster count for the book. Interesting. Despite what another poster stated, this - to me - does not suggest that the gnome is a playable character in 2008 even if not in the PHB. It states that the gnome in the MM will be made so it can be run by the DM, and it makes the distinction that this does not mean it will have enough info to be run by the players. It further states that enough of a difference exists between a PC playable gnome and a monster gnome that the PCs will have "just enough" ability to figure out that it is supposed to be a gnome. Why am I reminded of Gollum and Frodo here? Both were (originally, at least) hobbits, but Gollum was a monster - just similar enough in size, form, etc that it wasn't too much of a surpise to learn he was originally Smeagal the hobbit. So, considering this potential example, it seems to me that a potentially playable race, as given in the MM, will not be playable as a race - just usable as a monster by the DM. Indeed, it sounds as if enough will be different that the monster version may be more accurately considered the feral / aberrant / crazed hermit version of the race, rather than a typical example of the species - let alone playable as such. So, no, I do not expect anything given in the MM to be playable as a race in 4e. It sounds like they are making them simply too different from each other - one specifically built to be run by the DM, the other specifically built (differently) to be run by the PC. I really like this idea, but I think it could have metagaming problems as hp is abstract and unknown to the actual characters. What if, instead, the spell works upon a fatigued, exhausted, etc creature? So we would just need a mechanic that states something along the line of "Once the creature has lost 50% of their hp, the creature is fatigued. Once the creature has lost 75% of their hp they are exhausted. Once they have lost 100% they are unconscious."So, while a character may not know that their foe has lost 72 hp, they should realize that their foe is fatigued or exhausted. The DM can make some statement that makes such obvious - or require a Spot (or equivalent skill) check to notice that the creature seems to be moving slower, less precisely, etc. Once the PCs know that, then even if they do not know the remaining hp of the creature, they have reason to consider using spells that specifically work upon tired creatures - or are more likely to work upon weary creatures. How does this idea sound?</blockquote>

Verification