Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5970292" data-attributes="member: 64209">I think Balesir has been clearer on my point than I have (above). When I say I'm looking at it as a monster issue, I suppose I'm really looking at it as a world building issue. Your examples of the hobgoblins and dragon are good, but not quite exactly what I'm trying to say. What I'm addressing is that, in a given world, ogres tend to be a certain way, with some limited variation (except for "special" ogres like tribal leaders, or whathaveyou).  I think the best way to clarify this is to answer your comment:  Yes and no. I don't want them to exist. On the one hand, I don't begrudge them being available to other DMs who do want them. I'm starting to lean toward a desire for "a single core monster" and then if there are variant roles for that monster, have those be modular. On the other hand, my main point is that I don't want players to have to consider that maybe these ogres will suddenly be of a variety that has heretofore unknown powers inconsistent with what they've learned about ogres. As part of their understanding of the world, and of ogres, I'm building them not for the encounter, but constraining my DM options to allow players to learn the limitations of, in this example, ogres.   This might address the bafflement of yourself and @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6688937" target="_blank">Ratskinner</a> : As I said in my last post, monsters have never been more different from monsters of another type than they are in 4e. Goblins are not orcs, nor are they kobolds (unlike in earlier editions where fluff was required to distinguish them). It is that point that I imagine (I'm guessing here, not trying to set up a strawman) the two of you consider when people complain that monsters are too similar. It's plainly wrong...from that angle...monsters ARE more different from one another than ever before. There are few things I'd claim in regard to edition as fact, and this is one. It's demonstrable. But, here's where I MIGHT be able to shed some light on why people say that (as someone who does think it to a degree). While all kobolds are clearly different from all goblins...there is too much variety within kobolds. That variety limits what the kobold CANNOT do.  If you point to a kobold, there are two ways to define it: 1. It's schtick. 2. Its limitations. While 4e gave each monster a cool mechanical, and defining schtick, the (in my opinion) flawed designing of both later 3e and 4e that makes kobold brutes, kobold sneaks, kobold soldiers, kobold elites, kobold lurkers, etc etc etc. viable enemies to fight.  No more is there the player assumption of "ah ha! an ogre! if it can't get close, we've got this, easy!" The ogre COULD be a rock thrower ogre, as you suggested.  That's what I'm arguing makes sameness. Without those limitations, every monster becomes ANY monster...because it can.</blockquote>

Verification