D&D 3E/3.5 The 4E Monster Manual -- what 3.5 monsters need the axe?

[olshanski]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060714a Rust Monster Makeover
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060721a Ogre Mage Makeover
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20061028a Beholder Makeover


For my 2 cents, I think that the problem with oozes and rust monsters having save-or-die effects on items is bad, and Mearls fix is just more cumbersome mechanics.

Items have hit points, magic items have more hit points.
A sword has 5 hp
A +1 sword has 15 hp
A +2 sword has 25 hp
A +3 sword has 35 hp

Rust monsters and oozes should simply do HP damage to equipment rather than save-or-die. It makes things much easier. If a rust monster touch does 2d6 damage to metal, you don't need to worry about saving throws... A rust monster doesn't automatically destroy your equipment, but given enough time, it will.

edit: DAMN YOU HONG!

 

[Jer]

I wouldnt include giant/dire rates in those needing to be culled or have a diminished stat block. You dont need stats for a normal spider. You do for one the size of a football.

I suppose that if the new design mechanic is "1st level is the new 4th level" there's no point in sending normal rats and spiders after the PCs. Ah well, I still have my memories...

But do you need stats for a swarm of spiders? Or a swarm of rats? (Assuming, of course, that the swarm rules stay in some form in the new game). I'd say - bring it on!

I love the flumph! IMO its one of the poster children for goofy D&D monsters.

The flumph, the bullete and the rust monster are my 3 favorite goofy D&D monsters. IMHO every game is made better by the judicious addition of a little bit of flumph. Some day I hope to test that theory by putting a flumph in a Vampire game.

 

[gothmaugCC]

So reading this post, all im getting is "remove everything except Dragons Demons Devils and Undead".

Personally Im a fan of having a dozen monster manuals with a zillion different monsters at my fingertips. (to that end, ive picked up some great 3rd party monster manuals. Necromancer games "tome of Horrors 1, 2 +3" and Iron Kingdoms "monstronomicon" come to mind)

BUT if i had to pare the book down, Id keep Dragons, Demons, Devils, all the old school undead, and all the iconic monsters (ie Beholders, Bullettes, rhemoraz, purple worms, etc).

Formorians, phasms, scum, and all the player races could leave to make more room for crunchy evil goodness.

Oh and pare down the celestial selection. In my 18 years of DnD I can count the number of times I've encountered an actual "angel" on one hand.

 

[ArmoredSaint]

I'd be fine with the "Mearlsified" Rust Monster. Mike Mearls continues to impress me.

 

[an_idol_mind]

Mearlsified rust monster: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060714a

Mearlsified ogre mage: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060721a

Mearlsified beholder: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20061028a

Reading through those articles highlights one of the big reasons why my brain is resisting the 4e hype somewhat: the blanket statements of what's fun and what isn't. Losing equipment isn't fun. Save or die isn't fun. Antimagic fields aren't fun. And so on.

I think one of the reasons I haven't bought into WotC's marketing is because of their focus on telling people what's fun and/or fair. They keep pointing out parts of 3e that supposedly aren't fun. However, in my own experiences, I've had lots of fun with some of those elements. Save or die effects, when used sparingly, for example, have been very effective at adding some extra drama to my games.

I think WotC might be able to get more people excited about 4th edition if they change their focus or at least use less absolute language. Describing why a beholder's antimagic field is problematic is one thing. Flat out saying that the rust monster or the beholder isn't fun turns me off, because my own experiences tell me otherwise. Everytime someone at WotC mentions something that I've enjoyed as being no fun or not fair, my brain gives me another reason to think the design goals of 4th edition won't work with my games, even though I really do want to like the new edition.

 

[an_idol_mind]

To actually go back to the topic and ignore my threadjack, I think the first Monster Manual is best suited for the iconic monsters of the game. Critters that have been around and are well-loved by players should go there, including the weird and wacky ones like the bullette, the aurumvorax, and the rust monster. I'd prefer to see most new monsters added later on, either in adventure supplements or in future Monster Manuals. The first MM is the perfect place to appeal to old players and new players alike by showing off the coolest and strangest creatures the game has to offer.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I suppose that if the new design mechanic is "1st level is the new 4th level" there's no point in sending normal rats and spiders after the PCs. Ah well, I still have my memories...

When has a single rat been a realistic physical threat to a human? Its kind of sad that a 1st level character needs to tread cautiously near a regular cat. A few nips from a rat or lizard should not potentially knock a human unconscious, thats just rediculous. So ditch the useless more animal stats. I cant think of the time you'd need the BAB for a goldfish.

But do you need stats for a swarm of spiders? Or a swarm of rats? (Assuming, of course, that the swarm rules stay in some form in the new game). I'd say - bring it on!

Oh definately. Different "creature" entirely however.

 

[gothmaugCC]

When has a single rat been a realistic physical threat to a human? Its kind of sad that a 1st level character needs to tread cautiously near a regular cat. A few nips from a rat or lizard should not potentially knock a human unconscious, thats just rediculous. So ditch the useless more animal stats. I cant think of the time you'd need the BAB for a goldfish.

The stats of rats, cats, weasels, toads, etc, are needed in teh monster manual. Where else are wizards and other spellcasters supposed to get their familiars statistics?

and secondly....you've never tangled with a miami wharf rat before have ya? I hear there's some bruisers up in NYC as well ;P

In all seriousness though, one rat is not a threat, and was never intended as one. 100 rats on the other hand are... Remember the original single animal entries are a relic of 3.0 edition before they introduced swarm mechanics in 3.5. With the advent of those mechanics, the single entry became pretty much obsolete except to people with pets or familiars.

 

[Jer]

When has a single rat been a realistic physical threat to a human? Its kind of sad that a 1st level character needs to tread cautiously near a regular cat. A few nips from a rat or lizard should not potentially knock a human unconscious, thats just rediculous. So ditch the useless more animal stats. I cant think of the time you'd need the BAB for a goldfish.

Oh, my players never fought against a "single rat" - they might have liked that battle a little more

The swarm rules work well enough for my "vermin" needs, I suppose. Back in the day I'd just throw the little suckers after 'em in my own massive "swarm" without swarm rules. Having the diseased little suckers running around you, swatting at them miserably while you're trying to unlock the door to get out of the room filled with them is a nasty image that some of my players may still have

The stats of rats, cats, weasels, toads, etc, are needed in teh monster manual. Where else are wizards and other spellcasters supposed to get their familiars statistics?

I actually hope that they either ditch familiars entirely or come up with some rules where familiars aren't independent creatures from their masters. Some kind of extension of the caster that shares hit points, saves, etc. with its master when you're trying to figure out if someone can hit the familiar, but in general less of a "henchman" type extra character and more of a "magic item" type thing.

(A change I'd like to see applied somehow to "animal companions" that druids and rangers get, come to think of it. If they still get animal companions in 4e.)

 

[GreatLemur]

If people are going to complain about bizarre, silly-looking, or scifi-esque monsters, I guess the beholder has to go.