What did Wizards learn from Essentials?

[Tony Vargas]

I ask the latter because I've been in some groups that love to flavor and/or reflavor 4e powers, and other groups that seem to be contractually bound to never ever try it.

I've seen that down to the player level. Some love to describe an action creatively. Some just want to play the game. That's a positive of separating fluff and crunch: you can handle both kinds. The fluff doesn't affect the rules, so you don't /need/ it to resolve an action, and you can have as much as you want without complicating resolution or introducing imbalances or requiring arbitrary rulings.

 

[Kynn]

So, is the MV:Nentir Vale better than the 4EMM? and why?

Yeah, the consensus is that it's miles better than any of the 4e Monster books that have been put out. I'm not making the claim it's objectively better than 2e's Monstrous Compendium, but it's the only thing that might come close.

Rather than MC's more encyclopedic approach to monster fluff, most of the Nentir Vale entries concern themselves with specific, unique monsters or with specific groups. 4e's reskinnability makes these stats useful for other scenarios (I've used the city gang before when I needed a diverse and useful set of gang stats), but they've also got a lot of very rich plot hooks and background that begs to be used, stolen, or adapted.

So while you won't find out things like the mating habit of owlbears, you do get some nicely developed characters from a pack of adventurers who became an undead horde. Or a pair of troll (ogre? it's across the room, I'm lazy) brothers who are delightful set of antagonists for any campaign of the right level.

The monsters are all integrated into the default "Points of Light" setting (but still highly portable) and provide a lot of rich fluff and hooks that were missing from earlier 4e monster books.

In 4e, the monster books got progressively better with each book, except maybe MM2 which was as bad as MM(1). Monster Manual 1 in 4e is pretty much objectively the worst monster book that has ever been published for D&D. MM3, Dark Sun monster book, Monster Vault. By the time they hit MV:Nentir Vale, they had evolved the form -- and learned more than even in the Essentials Monster Vault, which you have -- to the point that MV:Nentir Vale is one of the standout products over the entire 4e line.

Also it comes with the jazzy tokens and a couple maps.

 

[Halivar]

Monster Manual 1 in 4e is pretty much objectively the worst monster book that has ever been published for D&D.

Ummm.... I liked it? Am I all alone?

 

[Kynn]

Ummm.... I liked it? Am I all alone?

Well, I dunno. I guess I shouldn't append "objectively" so blithely, but I do think it suffered badly from reduced and flavorless fluff along with going obsolete mechanically by the time 4e's Monster Manual 3 came out. Maybe there were worse monster books in the past (probably something minor in 2e!), but 4e's MM(1) was definitely the worst MM(1) when you compare the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition versions under that title.

For those who didn't know, Wizards realized their monster math was broken, a year or two in, and updated it in MM3. Last year in a Rule of 3 column they basically issued a public mea culpa for the way that Monster Manual (1) turned out.

 

[Halivar]

Well, I dunno. I guess I shouldn't append "objectively" so blithely, but I do think it suffered badly from reduced and flavorless fluff along with going obsolete mechanically by the time 4e's Monster Manual 3 came out. Maybe there were worse monster books in the past (probably something minor in 2e!), but 4e's MM(1) was definitely the worst MM(1) when you compare the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th edition versions under that title.

Okay, I can see that, now.

My aesthetic is probably informed by the fact that I typically glance at fluff, and then chuck it in favor of writing my own.

 

[pemerton]

Ummm.... I liked it? Am I all alone?

No. I liked it too, and still use it - updating the damage numbers to the new MM3 numbers is pretty trivial.

I also don't agree that it had no fluff. It has richer descriptions than the 1st ed AD&D MM - especially when the information carried by the stat blocks is factore in - and is about the same as the 3E MM. I don't have much 2nd ed AD&D mosnter stuff, but in my view those monster entries have a lot of repetitive and redundant information.

 

[Sadras]

Yeah, the consensus is that it's miles better than any of the 4e Monster books that have been put out. I'm not making the claim it's objectively better than 2e's Monstrous Compendium, but it's the only thing that might come close.

Well you painted a great picture so I will definitely be looking into it. Thanx.

 

[Hassassin]

I also don't agree that it had no fluff. It has richer descriptions than the 1st ed AD&D MM - especially when the information carried by the stat blocks is factore in - and is about the same as the 3E MM. I don't have much 2nd ed AD&D mosnter stuff, but in my view those monster entries have a lot of repetitive and redundant information.

Ok, I compared Owlbears from 4e MM1 and 2e MC1 in the post I've quoted below. Adding 3e MM1 to the mix we have:

Things in 2e but not 3e: That they can easily be taunted and tricked. That they hibernate. That they lay eggs and the prices and buyers of those.

Things in 3e but not 4e: Weight, height, any description beyond the image. Number of young. Prices of young on the market and training DCs.

Things in 4e but not 3e: The Winterclaw, which isn't explained.

I'd say 3e is about half way between 2e and 4e in fluffosity. I hope this trend doesn't continue or there will be no fluff left in 5e!

Let's compare 4e and 2e. I'm looking at owlbears, because I need them for my campaign soon. I'm using 2e MC1.

Things in 2e but not 4e: Weight, height, any description beyond the image. That they can easily be taunted and tricked. That they hibernate. Number of young, differences between genders, that they lay eggs. Prices of eggs and young on the market and who buys them.

Things in 4e but not 2e: Color image.

Additionally 4e gives us the stats of "Winterclaw Owlbear", of which it tells us nothing beyond tactics. 2e alludes to arctic owlbears that are a cross between arctic owls and a polar bear. I'd rather get that info and use the same stats than get the 4e stats without any explanation.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have the 2e Monstrous Manual. Not as inspiring to me as even the 4e MM1, let alone the Monster Vault or the awesome Monster Vault: Nentir Vale.

And owlbears are I agree better in the 2e MM. There's a good reason for this. The advantages of the 4e MM are in how monsters think and organise (without hardcoding to say that goblins are tribes). The advantage of the 2e MM are in how monsters physically look and their lifecycles. Owlbears being non-sapient and not very organised get very little benefit out of the 4e format (and neither do any other non-sapient animals).

On the other hand, look at the Kuo-Toa as an example of a slightly obscure race. The 2e one gives me information like height and weight and that a few of them (the Monitors) are slightly different from the rest. And number in a given size of tribe. The 4e one starts off with temples to dark gods. And goes on to tell me how they organise and train for combat (via the statblocks) and what type of spells the casters cast when under pressure. I know which one inspires me to use it.

And non-sapient creatures? Don't interest me that much. Except as guard-pets, and then other than the height (or length) and weight most of the 2e MM information is useless - guard-pets are not in tribes or packs. They are in whatever group their owners put them in. And likewise the %Lair chance...

Edit: The hibernation and egg-laying are both huge. And the winterclaw is, I agree, irrelevant.

 

[pemerton]

I've used spiders quite a bit in my campaign. 4e MM spider entry tells me, among other things, how drow relate to spiders, and also that Lolth used to be a god of fate. I'll stack that up against the 3E Vermin entry any day! That's likely to be of central importance to my campaign - whereas the height and weight of an owlbear has never yet come up.