Jack Colby
First Post
Wow, "spoiled" by 3e because all monsters had to follow elaborate PC rules. That's a new one. 
Unclear on how kobolds work (stats/attacks)
- Thread starter Lazybones
- Start date
Wow, "spoiled" by 3e because all monsters had to follow elaborate PC rules. That's a new one.
The good thing about that, IMO, was that it was very easy to quickly double-check a monster's stat block for perceived errors and even easier to correct them on the spot, because the method of designing them was so standardized. At one glance, you can quickly tell if the creature has the incorrect number of feats, or if its AC was calculated incorrectly, it has the wrong DCs for it special attacks, or if its attack/damage values are too high or too low.
Now, it is just one giant block of stats, with little/no means of double-checking for inconsistencies. Until the errata was released, I bet that no one even knew or realized that the ogre in the MM was dealing much less damage than it should, or that the angel had twice has much hp as it ought to possess.
I wouldn't say that it is better or worse. We just traded one set of problems for another.
Asmor
First Post
Wow, you must have like a 30 intelligence or something if you can do that all at one glance.
Basically, this system takes the approach that the specifics don't matter... Just ballpark it. Because, really, so what if the monster's ac is a point too high or low? bfd.
Oh, one point of AC disparity I can stomach (though it still does not excuse their apparent oversight). But let us be honest here. Would you have known or realized that the angel of valor had twice as much hp as it was supposed to have if the errata had not been released?
Wotc's streamlined stat block system is fine so long as it is correct, and that we believe it to be accurate. Only problem is that I can't really trust it to be correct, not with wotc's longstanding history of printing errors or worse. To cite an example, one of their FR adventure modules, "Tearing of the Weave" was riddled with stat-block inconsistencies/errors. It was thanks to the "rigid" npc creation system that allowed these flaws to be spotted quickly and corrected just as promptly. For example, the blackguard npc was missing all of his ex-paladin abilities, while some crs were inaccurate. This clearly goes beyond "just one missing/extra point of AC"
If on another day, wotc releases a stat block which has a monster dealing much more damage than what other monsters of its lv typically do, it can be boiled down to 1 of 2 conclusions. This higher damage output is intentional and balanced by some other shortcoming (be it real or perceived) of the monster to differentiate it from its peers, or wotc screwed up (again) and printed the wrong damage values (be it accidental or due to lack of sufficient playtesting). The problem then comes in trying to determine which is which. Are they wrong or am I mistaken? There just is no easy way of telling.
Basically, for me at least, it seems to defeat the purpose if they released a simplified stat-block, intending for the DM to just "take and use", but I actually spend more time vetting over said stats to make sure everything is in order than if they had just released all the pertintent information for me to digest (and I would have all the relevant info I need to make an informed decision).
Don't get me wrong. The new 4e statblock has its perks, that I admit, but I just can't shake that nagging feeling at the back of my head that something may be amiss, but I have no way of confirming or denying it. But it is probably just me and too much 3e.
DracoSuave
First Post
Oh, one point of AC disparity I can stomach (though it still does not excuse their apparent oversight). But let us be honest here. Would you have known or realized that the angel of valor had twice as much hp as it was supposed to have if the errata had not been released?
Wotc's streamlined stat block system is fine so long as it is correct, and that we believe it to be accurate. Only problem is that I can't really trust it to be correct, not with wotc's longstanding history of printing errors or worse. To cite an example, one of their FR adventure modules, "Tearing of the Weave" was riddled with stat-block inconsistencies/errors. It was thanks to the "rigid" npc creation system that allowed these flaws to be spotted quickly and corrected just as promptly. For example, the blackguard npc was missing all of his ex-paladin abilities, while some crs were inaccurate. This clearly goes beyond "just one missing/extra point of AC"
If on another day, wotc releases a stat block which has a monster dealing much more damage than what other monsters of its lv typically do, it can be boiled down to 1 of 2 conclusions. This higher damage output is intentional and balanced by some other shortcoming (be it real or perceived) of the monster to differentiate it from its peers, or wotc screwed up (again) and printed the wrong damage values (be it accidental or due to lack of sufficient playtesting). The problem then comes in trying to determine which is which. Are they wrong or am I mistaken? There just is no easy way of telling.
Basically, for me at least, it seems to defeat the purpose if they released a simplified stat-block, intending for the DM to just "take and use", but I actually spend more time vetting over said stats to make sure everything is in order than if they had just released all the pertintent information for me to digest (and I would have all the relevant info I need to make an informed decision).
Don't get me wrong. The new 4e statblock has its perks, that I admit, but I just can't shake that nagging feeling at the back of my head that something may be amiss, but I have no way of confirming or denying it. But it is probably just me and too much 3e.
Actually it's pretty easy to confirm. Compare values for hit and damage against expected values for that level. If different, look for mitigating factors and abilities.
No math needed.
Asmor
First Post
Yes, actually, I would have. In fact, there have been a few occasions when I was reading adventures or stuff when I noticed a strange amount of HP or XP and verified that it was incorrect.
I suppose I'm probably in the minority, though, having spent a lot of academic time fiddling with the monster creation guidelines and rules as I wrote my math cruncher tool. Incidentally, HP is one of the few values for which there are explicit rules and which should always be calculable based on level, role, minion/normal/elite/solo status and constitution score.
The damage values, on the other hand, would be much more difficult to see were wrong, especially since the monsters in the MM clearly weren't made using the guidelines in the DMG, so even if you do notice the discrepency there's no way to tell if it was intentional or not.
At the end of the day, all I can say is just don't sweat it. Yeah, the monsters may be too tough. Yeah, they may be too weak. But ultimately, it really doesn't matter. 4e characters are pretty resilient, and it ain't easy to kill them unless you purposefully stack the odds against 'em. Personally, I have no intention of using the MM errata just because it would be a huge PITA to double check every monster I ever use.
