worlds and monsters is in my hands

[Nahat Anoj]

The concept of "Elemental Evil" as represented in TOEE is recognized as core, on par with the Nine Hells

Awesome.

Dominions, especially Abandoned ones, found throughout the Astral Sea are 'adventure sites custom made for epic characters'

I really like the idea of abandoned dominions. Much like how the ruins of ancient empires dot the mortal world, the ancient houses of gods long forgotten float aimlessly through the Astral Sea ...

 

[Stogoe]

From what little I do know about 4E its as easy as creating an interesting encounter with said demon and his undead minions. That's basically how it would have happened back in 1E. And if the players ask how the demon came to have undead minions, just smile and say "Ancient DM Secret!"

In 4e, when the players ask how the demon came to have undead minions, we'll just smile and say "Ancient and Profane Ritual/Eldritch Machine!"

Seems pretty simple, to me...

 

[kave99]

I have mine as well - race ya!

thanks for doing this, the arrival of worlds and monsters in my hands came just as i started a new job, so I've been super busy and was glad to let you do all the work just guessing that your in the GTA ?

 

[AntlerDruid]

The pantheon mentioned is: Bahamut, Vecna, Avandra, Zehir, Ioun, Pelor, Tiamat, Gruumsh, Lolth, Corellon, Moradin, Kord, Bane, The Raven Queen, Asmodeus, Torog
.

I thought Sehanine was supposed to be one of the Core Gods now???? Was she mentioned at all?

Anything else mentioned about Lolth besides just her name? Any pictures of Lolth?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Kamikaze, I get want you're saying, but I think that most people might not WANT or need bullet points for the fluff. Personally, I always thought the "habitat: coastlands" stuff was just vague enough to be a complete waste of space. If I care what WOTC wants me to do with the monster outside of combat, I'll read the fluff and get the full context; if I don't care, I'll use the combat stats and make up my own backstory. And I'd CERTAINLY rather get an extra half-page of prose explanations than a half-page of redundant bullet points.

I'm not sure why you're using the MM to brainstorm plotlines anyway. If that's something that WOTC needs to help with, it'd make a lot more sense to put it in the DMG. They could probably come up with some pretty decent tables of monster levels and habitats, or maybe even monster behavior.

(By the way, I like how there's a 9-page argument about blacksmithing when I'm pretty sure they've said that the Profession skills are gone in 4e...)

 

[Derren]

Kamikaze, I get want you're saying, but I think that most people might not WANT or need bullet points for the fluff. Personally, I always thought the "habitat: coastlands" stuff was just vague enough to be a complete waste of space. If I care what WOTC wants me to do with the monster outside of combat, I'll read the fluff and get the full context; if I don't care, I'll use the combat stats and make up my own backstory. And I'd CERTAINLY rather get an extra half-page of prose explanations than a half-page of redundant bullet points.

No one said that those abilities must be in the statblock. But they should be in the MM as rules. A small section in the DMG can't possibly cover all monsters as good as some few lines of extra rules for each monster could.

And be honest, its much easier to create a new monster for the party to fight than to place and integrate this monster into the world and create a plot around it.

 

[Lackhand]

And be honest, its much easier to create a new monster for the party to fight than to place and integrate this monster into the world and create a plot around it.

It is? I do not find this to be the case.
Also, all signs point to ("Fire archons make high quality weapons", "::here are some illustrations of tiefling weapons::", "Hobgoblins are militaristic and keep nasty pets!") there being points for this already.

So, yeah, I'd say it sounds like people are asking for hard-and-fast, crunchy game-mechanical rules on how to integrate monsters into adventures.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Kamikaze, I get want you're saying, but I think that most people might not WANT or need bullet points for the fluff. Personally, I always thought the "habitat: coastlands" stuff was just vague enough to be a complete waste of space.

Whereas I would use it as an essential part of how I DM. Quick, they're on the coastlands, I need to have them fight something, let's scan the terrain/habitat index....ah! Here we go! Giant Crabs are about the right CR. BAM. Fight it. A few moments in the middle of the session where I scan an index is all I need to give them a battle that doesn't stretch their believability to the breaking point.

If I don't have that in 4e, I've gotta go insert it myself, meaning I'm going to be taking a lot of pre-prep time. Alternately, I guess I could just pre-plan encounters, but that's profoundly dull for me.

If I care what WOTC wants me to do with the monster outside of combat, I'll read the fluff and get the full context; if I don't care, I'll use the combat stats and make up my own backstory. And I'd CERTAINLY rather get an extra half-page of prose explanations than a half-page of redundant bullet points.

Well, the bullet points don't take up a half-page. That's kind of why they're there. WotC has a history of doing this, for instance, with the MMV: under a Habitat heading, they give a quick prose run-down of where it lives, and then bullet point it for quick reference in the game. That, with the index, is all I need. But because some of the designers may see that material as useless (simply because they don't play the game how I play the game), it might be cut.

I'm not sure why you're using the MM to brainstorm plotlines anyway. If that's something that WOTC needs to help with, it'd make a lot more sense to put it in the DMG. They could probably come up with some pretty decent tables of monster levels and habitats, or maybe even monster behavior.

It would be much more convinient to list it with the monster's combat stats so that I'm not referencing three different books to try and figure out what monster my party should be facing RIGHT NOW.

And I brainstorm plotlines with the MM because D&D revolves around combat. The plotlines are basically a chain of things you fight, linked together by story. The things I fight should also provide me anchors for the story I'm telling.

(By the way, I like how there's a 9-page argument about blacksmithing when I'm pretty sure they've said that the Profession skills are gone in 4e...)

I bet the Craft skill will stay, though.

So, yeah, I'd say it sounds like people are asking for hard-and-fast, crunchy game-mechanical rules on how to integrate monsters into adventures.

Kind of, yeah. I need statistics for noncombat so I can do a quick word-association game and get my players to the next sword-slicing, spell-slinging combat.

 

[Lab_Monkey]

Whereas I would use it as an essential part of how I DM. Quick, they're on the coastlands, I need to have them fight something, let's scan the terrain/habitat index....ah! Here we go! Giant Crabs are about the right CR. BAM. Fight it. A few moments in the middle of the session where I scan an index is all I need to give them a battle that doesn't stretch their believability to the breaking point.

If I don't have that in 4e, I've gotta go insert it myself, meaning I'm going to be taking a lot of pre-prep time. Alternately, I guess I could just pre-plan encounters, but that's profoundly dull for me.

This statement assumes that because habitat information isn't listed in the combat statblock for a monster (e.g., Giant Crabs) that there will not be a table in the MM or DMG with encounter tables by habitat. I see no reason why WotC would want to do away with encounter tables just because they are reducing the amount of non-combat info presented in the statblock. Just something to keep in mind; there is a great deal about 4e that we don't know yet.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

All due respect, but this is a bit of an odd argument. You're advocating the inclusion of non-combat information in the statblock because it gives you some random raw material from which to build a "hook," but from the sound of it, WotC is going to be providing you the hook itself instead, which is taking things one step further in the right direction, no?

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."

Actually, this is a matter of apples and oranges. You need specific info about beholder eyestalk powers in combat, which is the number one priority area for streamlining and speeding play. Thus, it should go into the stat block. The non-combat info, on the other hand, clutters the statblock and clouds the information that is immediately useful in combat, so it should come out. I think that's the design philosophy anyway.