D&D 4E Why I hate the Hydra: —and other dumbed down 4E monsters—

[fissionessence]

Why I hate the Hydra: —and other dumbed down 4E monsters—

I remember reading a while back in an interview (or maybe I heard it in a podcast interview) that one of the guys designing monsters was really excited because he didn't have to be tied down to static monster building rules, and he had more freedom to just make up a cool power and stick it in as something exciting.

This got me pretty stoked about the potential for monsters, but after glancing through the Monster Manual I'm pretty disappointed. I just did a quick glance at a few of my favorites so far, but among the huge let-downs are the hydra and lycanthropes.

The hydra is just a mass of hit points like any other monster now. The only statistical references to it having more than one head are that it gets an attack for each head, and stun and daze effects just 'stun' or 'daze' one head (not all of them). What happened to cutting off each head one by one, and hoping you can take out the rest before the previous ones sprout back up into two? Isn't that like the point of the hydra?

The other crappy one is the lycanthrope. They only included the wererat and the werewolf (and only one version of each). I guess it's okay that they didn't have room for weretigers, werebears, etc., but it would have been nice to have instructions on how to build your own were-creatures . . . although it looks to be really really easy considering how dumbed down they are. Here's the werewolf's 'change shape' ability:

Change Shape (minor; at-will) <> Polymorph
A werewolf can alter its physical form to appear as a gray wolf or
a unique human (see Change Shape, page 280). It cannot use its
bite attack in human form and cannot make greatclub attacks in
wolf form.

The 'change shape' entry (page 280) basically just says that the creature's form changes, but its statistics remain identical.

What a crappy lycanthrope!

Anyway, what are others' thoughts on these monsters, and are there any other monsters you've spotted that look weak from a design perspective?

~ fissionessence

 

[Incenjucar]

There are generally multiple kinds of hydra in the game. Learnian seems to be the type you pine for.

A lycanthrope's stats don't need to change. When it goes and turns into a furry it can HIT YOU WITH A GREAT CLUB.

Monster stats don't even do that much now anyways, as the bonuses are based on a formula.

 

[Tortoise]

According to the rpg stats on the mini game card for the Fen Hydra, when you do a certain amount of damage you cut off one head which is immediately replaced by two, thus increasing the number of attacks.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

The hydra isn't the most exciting of monster to fight in 4e, it's true.

But then, it wasn't that exciting to fight in 3e either.

 

[chaotix42]

According to the rpg stats on the mini game card for the Fen Hydra, when you do a certain amount of damage you cut off one head which is immediately replaced by two, thus increasing the number of attacks.

Yeah, but it's not that way in the MM. It would be a very easy ability to create, perfectly suitable for your own custom solo Hydra.

 

[zoroaster100]

I think one of the WOTC designers posted recently that the hydra was at one points supposed to have a cool power involving the heads regenerating or something of that sort, and they took out the power due to fear that it was too complex, but in his blog he was wishing they had left that cool power in the Monster Manual.

 

[keterys]

Two things of note...
1) Most hydras did not work that way before either.
2) The hydra was a much more complicated monster but they cut the complex ability as they thought most people wouldn't appreciate the complexity. I'm hoping wotc will post the stats for what they cut at some point.

 

[fissionessence]

Well I hope they don't use the same 'it's too complex' philosophy moving forward. 4E is way too mechanically simple as it is . . . it could use some serious spicing up on the complexity scale.

If I ever have my players fight a hydra, there will certainly be a 'custom' power added in, perhaps like the DDM Fen Hydra (although I haven't looked at that stat card). However, I am opposed to the concept that a DM should have to adjust the monster manual in order to make the monsters represent mechanically what they're flavorfully supposed to be like.

Does anyone have any insight on lycanthropes, though? Fighting a werewolf in human form shouldn't be the same as fighting it in hybrid form as fighting it in wolf form. (And no, losing/gaining a bite or great club attack doesn't accurately represent the complete changing of the creature's form.) There isn't even any mention of a 'curse of lycanthropy.'

~

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Well that is because lycanthropy now is hereditary not based on a curse.

 

[Grazzt]

Does anyone have any insight on lycanthropes, though? Fighting a werewolf in human form shouldn't be the same as fighting it in hybrid form as fighting it in wolf form. (And no, losing/gaining a bite or great club attack doesn't accurately represent the complete changing of the creature's form.) There isn't even any mention of a 'curse of lycanthropy.'

~

It's stats don't change. The lycanthropes listed lose access to certain attacks in certain forms (like no bite attack in human for for example). Other than that...that's pretty much it. No template for them. No "lets have three stat blocks to cover a single monster in all its forms"

Making new lycanthropes is as easy as saying "I think I'll make a werebadger" (or whatever). Whip out the monster rules, design it. Tack on its powers. Done.

No curse of lycanthropy. Apparently that's gone. Lycanthropes no longer turn other creatures when bitten. It seems that new lycanthropes are born from were-mommy and were-daddy.