worlds and monsters is in my hands

[jaer]

Well, that description and powerset alone does indeed give worldbuilders the choice to cast Mind Flayer thralls like that. They could assume, like you did, that Mind Flayers' slaves aren't actually fully mind-wiped, but just enslaved by terror and the superior power of Mind Flayers. That's actually rather cool. The "problem" for those of us who like monster stats to represent what monsters are capable of is when the choice is made explicit that Mind Flayer thralls are actually Dominated in some way - perhaps they have no minds left at all anymore and fall dead when their master is slain - but yet no information is provided on how this status comes about.

A little phrasing explaining that, for instance, Mind Flayers create their Dominated thralls by sucking out their target's brains and replacing them with magical goo, or through a five-minute version of their Charming process that can only be performed on a helpless foe, or whatever, goes a long way. It's good to let DMs make up how and whether monsters fit into their setting. It's bad to force DMs to make up stuff in order to explain how a monster makes sense or does its presented schtick at all.

It's much like the gray or green slaad entry which states they make and aquire magical items to increase their own spell casting, but have no feats, no magic items, and few items that would help them increase their power since they have little way of using wands or staves, being that they have no spell list, on spell-like abilities.

The angle I come from is, I'd rather be told that I am being given the combat stats and a fluffy statement to flesh out myself then given an entry that should contain all there is to know about a creature and not have it make sense with what was told in the fluffy.

I do understand the want to have the information. I don't need to be told how a devil is creating and controlling an undead army (the control undead rules never supported such a thing in the first place, really) if such a broad, blanket statement were made in the fluffy paragraph. I would simply make up a way and a reason for it to do so.

But I can understand the want to have a a stat block saying they have an animate dead ritual that involved the devil in question flaying the skin off the victum and weaving a piece of that flesh into a belt, and that should the belt be destroyed (by burning, perhaps), all the undead who's skin was woven into that belt would fall to dust. Loosing the belt causes the devil to loose control of the undead it created, but no one else can control the undead with the belt except the demon.

One statement, the devil creates army of the undead, is a bit lacking (in the very least, it should cross reference the type of undead it creates [i.e., See cankerous zombies on page 248 of the MM] and how many it should have with it in order to help DMs build a level-appropriate challege). The other at least gives DMs something to work with plotwise: it's a ritual, it takes some time and the devil's direct involvement, and the undead army can be defeated at its source: destroy the belt, destroy the army.

 

[Badkarmaboy]

Right, right. But I believe the point being made here is that things like "are often really good blacksmiths" belong in the monster description, not in the monster stat block. Putting that in the monster stat block shackles the monster in a way that putting it in the description does not. And even worse, it commits an unforgivable sin- cluttering up the stat block with information not relevant to combat, where the stat block is actually used.

Ding!!

 

[infax]

@Mustrum_Ridcully:
Although you don't think it is necessary (and I admit I don't think it is either) I must say I would like to see stats just as you described.

Such blocks (or rather a variant of those, with different data, often encountered skills and the like) could come in really handy for improvising GMs (those of us that can't always "the fluff text entirely" before using a moonster in a campaign).

 

[Zaruthustran]

I don't know what social role I want them to have when I choose them out of the MM. I rely on the noncombat information to tell me, at a glance, what social role they could/do occupy. That +20 Religion might be useless for the BBEG's combat prowess, but it gives him a context that implies other relations that I can use on a moment's notice.

I think 4E will be a delight for you, then, because it seems like 4E monsters are grouped according to role. We know of “Brute” and “Mastermind” so far. Right away, you can tell—at a glance—what role this monster is meant to play. I bet the MM will even index monsters by role, for your convenience.

Regardless of noncombat skill choices, that information is useless in a fight and does not belong in the stat block. Put noncombat information with the rest of the descriptive information (such as temperament, appearance, and so on), in the text area below the stat block. Which, come to think of it, should be probably be renamed "combat stat block".

 

[PeterWeller]

The published informations, the declared intent of the designers, how dragons are treated, etc. 4E seems to revolve mostly around combat, giving no heed to out of combat behavior of monsters.

Sure there are counter examples for this (history of fire archons and giants) but I have the feeling that those things will not appear in the MM. I hope that I am wrong, but I think I'm not.

I agree that they seem to be focusing on combat, but that could just be a product of the fact that all we've been told about the rules revolves around combat. Just because they haven't been talking much about how the game operates out of combat doesn't mean that the game doesn't operate out of combat. It's a little ridiculous to jump to the conclusion that the MM won't contain fluff information about monsters.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am not going to remember "+2 racial bonus to Jump, Climb and Craft" in a monster book. A little prose will make it easier though, especially if there's a little backstory that explains why they are such great blacksmiths, or what they have crafted.

Well, 4e seems to be embracing the same philosophy as SAGA in that bonuses shouldn't be common and minor, but should be rarer and more significant. So random +1's and +2's will likely be whittled down anyway, and the bonuses there still are will be large enough that you notice them (especially because there's less of them).

But putting the backstory with a "+20 Blacksmith" note is a complimentary, not incompatible, goal.

And I am rarely building cultural qualities about of my campaign world in the middle of the game. I am, however, running combat in (almost) every game and often using stat blocks I'm unfamiliar with.

I'm building cultural qualities in the middle of my game, AND running combat in almost every game, using statblocks I'm unfamiliar with.

Why can't we have both?

Oh, totally. But I don't need the stat block to contain those noncombat abilities. I want the statblock to just tell me what it's like in a fight. Everything else, I'll figure out based on the monsters' fluff information and the context in which the party encountered it. 4E's skill system and discreet breakdown of powers into different categories of usability look like they're going to make this pretty darn easy.

The combat statblock? No, that doesn't need to include this stuff. But it does need to be included, preferably called out in a notation, not shunted off in the middle of a paragraph somewhere. And it does need to be ALREADY DONE FOR ME.

Which is what I mean when I say I don't want monsters that are just XP speedbumps, I want monsters that exist in context in the world. 4e could easily just give me the former and expect me to do the latter, and that would irk me every time I opened the MM, because it would be work I had to do to make the monster usable for me.

I think 4E will be a delight for you, then, because it seems like 4E monsters are grouped according to role. We know of “Brute” and “Mastermind” so far. Right away, you can tell—at a glance—what role this monster is meant to play. I bet the MM will even index monsters by role, for your convenience.

All those roles have one glaring problem.

They're all combat roles.

Nothing about "brute" will tell me if the creature is, for instance, a herbivore or a carnivore. Nothing about "mastermind" tells me which creatures it especially hates.

Regardless of noncombat skill choices, that information is useless in a fight and does not belong in the stat block. Put noncombat information with the rest of the descriptive information (such as temperament, appearance, and so on), in the text area below the stat block. Which, come to think of it, should be probably be renamed "combat stat block".

Sure, do that. And give DM's like me a "noncombat stat block" where they have skills and alignments and environments and ally creatures already mentioned for me.

And I'd be a happy little pea in a pod.

But the talk so far says "Give me a streamlined monster with no information other than the barebones combat stuff!" and that, for me, blows.

 

[ferratus]

If we're putting all the fluff text of how it interacts with the monster in the statblock, why do we need a monster manual?

For monsters, I'm sure they will tell you what they are good at, how their culture functions, etc. So if you see an illithid for example, I'm sure you'll know what they do and how they go about it at least as well as 3e. The deep detail would involve a "lords of madness" book, either available from WotC or from a 3rd party publisher (depending on how 3e versions sold).

NPC's will probably have their plots, plans and ambitions published based on how important they are. They will probably have stats published to deal with combat and non-combat interactions with PC's. After that, I don't really understand your argument Kamakazie... how in the heck is it harder to wing Evil Lieutenant Smith's motivations and goals than to generate feat and skill lists for him and 2 or 3 other boss henchmen? Like you I like to wing things, and frankly generating NPC's and trying to keep straight all the meaningless spells, abilities, skills and feats that they only used in 1% of encounters was far more work than I wanted.

 

[Cadfan]

Ok, but lets use another example.
Take a nonexisting demon which fluff text say that it normally tries to raise large undead armies and then spread chaos through the countryside.
I expect that this monster has an Animate Dead ability and means to control this undead.

That's a fair enough example, except that it doesn't really critique 4e very well. There is an entire monster "role" for monsters of this sort- Mastermind. And the fact that it is often accompanied by an army of the undead under its control is a combat relevant piece of information.

Your Blacksmithing +20 really was the better example. I'm sure there will be a giant or something that has as an affinity for forging metal. Does it really make a difference if there's an entry in its statblock under Skills detailing that it has 15 ranks in Craft: Blacksmith? What's wrong with just creating the generic statblock, and putting a line in the monster's textual description saying that this monster is acclaimed for its fine skill at forging metal?

We know that Hobgoblins in 4e are themed to use beasts of war amongst their armies. Does the typical hobgoblin need "Handle Animal +5?" Or can we just say, "Hobgoblins often use beasts of war to support their troops, including beasts X, Y, and Z?"

I can't really see the difference.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

We know that Hobgoblins in 4e are themed to use beasts of war amongst their armies. Does the typical hobgoblin need "Handle Animal +5?" Or can we just say, "Hobgoblins often use beasts of war to support their troops, including beasts X, Y, and Z?"

I can't really see the difference.

Hobgoblins are mentioned as one of the races that will get PC stats, so they'll probably get a skill bonus especially if it's essential towards a certain build as a PC.

 

[I'm A Banana]

After that, I don't really understand your argument Kamakazie... how in the heck is it harder to wing Evil Lieutenant Smith's motivations and goals than to generate feat and skill lists for him and 2 or 3 other boss henchmen? Like you I like to wing things, and frankly generating NPC's and trying to keep straight all the meaningless spells, abilities, skills and feats that they only used in 1% of encounters was far more work than I wanted.

Yeah, in 3e, generating NPC's was a waste of time (which is why my games tended to have big monster fights over big NPC fights). They kind of fixed this by the end with the Exemplars of Evil and Elder Evils supplements, which I ADORE, but those came out next to or after the 4e announcement, making them slightly less than useful.

The reason I need this "useless" information is so I can link the fun parts together in a cogent narrative on the fly. I come to the table bare, and I run a game right from the hip, in an ideal circumstance. This means that I need to be able to draw connections between world elements and monsters very quickly. Noncombat information helps me to do this, because it suggests trappings and world elements around the monster that I can find a place for. +20 Blacksmithing doesn't just mean that the guy can make a really nice horseshoe. It means, perhaps, an epic battle in a massive forge, where he's bristling with black armor he created himself. It means, perhaps, an intelligent evil sword dropped into the party's take of loot in order to sow dissent amongst them. It means, perhaps, a turncoat dwarf who trained him as a youth, who is truly the mastermind behind this forge-orc.

If that information is no longer there, the idea doesn't build itself. It just falls flat.

We know that Hobgoblins in 4e are themed to use beasts of war amongst their armies. Does the typical hobgoblin need "Handle Animal +5?" Or can we just say, "Hobgoblins often use beasts of war to support their troops, including beasts X, Y, and Z?"

I can't really see the difference.

Think about the shoe being on the other food. We know that beholders can shoot eye beams. Does the typical beholder need 10 different specific spell-like beams that it can shoot? Or can we just say "Beholders often have eye-beams, including a hold, a disintegrate, and an telekinesis beam."

The specificity helps on-the-fly play because I don't need to guess about how well they control an unruly X, or how well they can domesticate a wild Y, or even if they meet an A, B, or C, if they can use their training to calm it in some way. I don't need to make this up. I'll have rules for it.

If it's called out in a notation, I'll also be able to draw my eye to it while I scan the entry, rather than having to read an entire block of text to get the information.

The faster that info gets from the page to my brain, the faster my PC's will be on to finding the Hobgoblin Beastmaster who can perhaps tame the wild nightmare that's ravaging the countryside, because his +10 Handle Animal skill is better than any of their +2's. Or perhaps fighting him if they do have a better HA score.